Bristow AW189

[Phone Wind]

I se that the AW press page has announced that Bristow has signed a contract for 6 AW189
AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that Bristow Group Inc. has signed a contract for six AW189 helicopters plus options for additional aircraft. The aircraft will be used to perform offshore transport missions. The contract marks a further expansion of the fleet of AgustaWestland helicopters operated by Bristow, which already has AW139s operating globally, and strengthens the already excellent relationship with AgustaWestland.
Bristow Signs Contract for 6 AW189 (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/bristow-group-inc-signs-contract-six-aw189-helicopters)

What's the latest on its last new signing as launch customer for the EC175?

[Hilife]

Surely similar reasons for running S-92’s alongside EC225’s.....de-risking.

If a grounding or major problems with one, you still have the other to service oil contracts and therefore alleviate financial penalties.

[Aerodynamik]

I hear the first Bristows AW189 has arrived at Norwich. Does anyone know which rigs they will be flying to?

[Bravo73]

Cygnus ? GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd (http://www.gdfsuezep.co.uk/our-operations/cygnus.aspx)

Bristow introduces first AW189 for GDF SUEZ E&P UK - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/bristow-introduces-first-aw189-gdf-suez-ep-uk/)


(Lots of the other rigs in the SNS are too small for the AW189).

[HeliComparator]

Screen graphics look very "Star Trek"! I like all the buttons that say "Do not operate" and have to wonder what happens when you press them. Perhaps a red warning with an "I told you not to operate that" caption?


Anyway, more to the point what is it like to fly?

[Ian Corrigible]

Perhaps a red warning with an "I told you not to operate that" caption?
Great Zarquon!

http://i.imgur.com/lvuvmPP.jpg (http://www.douglasadams.com/creations/hhgg.html)

I/C

[tottigol]

HC, the "Do Not Operate" buttons on the AFCS control panel are relative to the SAR modes that have not yet been certificated.

The 189 flies very nicely, there have been several changes with respect to the 139.
Gone are the vibrations through TL due to a different rotor blade design, and the CatA profiles are much more "passenger benign".
The avionics incorporate all what the pilots always wanted to have in the 139.
Fuel burn is actually comparable to the smaller 139 as well.

[TunaSandwich]

Are electric assist parking brakes standard or optional?

[noooby]

Now we just need an STC from Agusta for the Collins cockpit in the 139.

Please tell Agusta!! If enough 139 operators want it they will do it!

[he1iaviator]

Another 21st century cockpit spoiled by that antique cargo hook load indicator! Airbus managed to incorporate that on the main screens years ago! Come on AW, get your act together! :ugh:

[diginagain]

Perhaps they had a lot of them sitting on a shelf somewhere, rather like the Whirlwind legs they fitted to the Lynx 9.

[Aerodynamik]

Very interesting......thanks guys

[heliski22]

I think you'll find the photos are from the visit of the prototype (I-PTFF; P5) in Bristow colours to Norwich last July. Cockpit details weren't entirely representative at that point, especially in the area of the AFCS Control Panel.

[slow n low]

I only hope the fully integrated cockpit has a better HMI than the NH 90...
Having one guy go heads down to fiddle with the "box" to turn something on or off is fraught with fraughtness.

Getting caught in another "volume" on the DKU when ATC gives you a frequency change just does ones head in!

"<call sign> contact CENTER 124.6" (while fiddling with a ROUTE GUIDANCE change in the "box")

Replies to ATC...then mumbles a quiet curse to myself..

..finishes entering a way-point into a route while you are in that sub menu..(or face 10 presses to get back to it after!!)

..button push... button push... (finish off and exit that volume..)

..waiting..

..waiting..

..button push to open the radio I want to modify..

..waiting.. :ouch:

..enter new freq..(up to 5 button pushes) then presses enter.. (not too fast or get the CMD ACK REFSD then you have to start again!!)

..SUCCESS!! :}

talks to CENTER...

Perhaps the "refresh' rate in the menus is a good deal faster in this machine!!

Looks very nice though in Bristow colours!!

[jimf671]

CAA registration record of first AW189 in service.
(Greatbritain-One Eight Nine Bristow)
GINFO Database Search | Aircraft Register | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&)...

Arrival at Norwich the following day.

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii58/keithnewsome/keithnewsome012/DSC_6877.jpg

[shetlander]

Look what I found outside the Bristow hanger in Aberdeen...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10628019_10152692599326023_5826441432545214290_n.jpg?oh=209e e16b5411ef0ba9b7355ad5889943&oe=548351E9&__gda__=1420873612_26e65e7805a5cabd14b9c81f6b28c630&dl=1

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10440661_10154662341320224_7708965945976872064_n.jpg?oh=d754 62752b297012ea6004b645b325c7&oe=54AEFEE6&__gda__=1421461427_efcffd0e2c33ae9f5f8e85ecfdbe9cdd&dl=1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzFm6LKIQAEyifG.jpg

[tottigol]

Nice, last I saw it in August it was still in primer and composite colors.
Wonder who's actually flying it.

[jimf671]

So what muppet thought that ground clearance was acceptable?

Signs of a disaster looming.

[Takan Inchovit]

Might be better off with a set of skids.

[heli1]

Isn't this the 5th prototype trials aircraft? The production aircraft for Bristow are still at Yeovil ?

[TTFD]

heli1

Correct. It was here to be displayed at the P&J Energy Ball at the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre on 4 October and is now on its way back to Italy.

It was in Aberdeen last year for the same event in Bristow colours.

[jimf671]

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/15421662375_0db0926e01_z.jpg

Large (https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/15421662375_f87ddcefeb_k.jpg)

Captioned as EGPD. 2nd Oct 2014.

[Mast Bumper]

What's going on with the red paint? It looks like this is a temporary paint wrap that has seen a bit of rain and is starting to peel, but I have a hard time imagining that this is what was delivered. Any insight?

[jimf671]

This is PT5 and not a production aircraft. It is rumoured to have recently been fitted with a partial implementation of the SAR long range fuel tank. This appears to be taken at Bristow at Dyce.

Quite a few of coats of paint on I-PTFF in the last two years!

[terminus mos]

That's one hell of a snout

[Hilife]

Isn’t it just.

Flaps, Ziggy and Dizzy come to mind.

[ATN]

'That's one hell of a snout'

I heard that it is designed to bring the CG more forward.

[Vie sans frontieres]

That cabin is tiny. They've got to be kidding.

[tottigol]

http://www.centurynovelty.com/catImages/source/items/179-047.jpg

Whadd'ya mean "That cabin is tiny", compared to what?

[detgnome]

I can't agree that the cabin is tiny. You can get 2 stretchers in either lengthways or across the cabin, with space between them to allow IEC to be delivered. Granted the height is always going to be an issue, but it is worth noting that is both longer and wider than a 139.

[jeepys]

The cabin looks smaller in this picture than up close.
The 189 has a good size cabin and is noticeably larger than the 139.
Okay so you can't have a game of badminton in the back as some people would expect but after the initial problematic period that will no doubt plague the 189 as in most new types this could be a good aircraft.

It's not a SK and no matter how much you slate it it will never be a SK but it's what will be doing the job for the future so get used to it.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Perhaps you could explain where the first response bag, the second response bag, the casualty monitoring system, the defibrillator, the crew's kit bags, the paediatric bag, the smokes, the hi-lines, the life jackets, the chocks, the NVGs, the aircraft documents, the maps, the camera, the medical gloves, the torches (small and large), the spare oxygen, the entonox, the thermal blankets, the body bags, the winching kit, the restraint equipment, the spare winching kit, the rescue strops, the child rescue valise, the splints, the KED and much more besides are going to be stowed (and immediately accessible) along with those two stretchers on the floor.

[jeepys]

In the same place as the SAR 139 perhaps.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Trouble is, there appears to be a bank of 4 seats and a bulkhead in the way. Blind faith will only get you so far. Sooner or later you have to confront the reality that it's too darn small and kit will have to be sacrificed and when that happens, the 'no lesser service' principle falls apart.


By the way, I should have said, all that kit needs to be stowed somewhere where it won't get wet when you bring a casualty on board during wet winching.

[detgnome]

I believe that the rear seats in the SAR variant are different - as has already been stated the picture does not show a SAR variant, it is one of the prototypes in CG colours. The bulkhead is not there in the SAR variant and as Jeepys said, it will be very similar to the AW139.

Docs and maps will be in the centre console where the pilots can access them (not visible in the pic above).

I don't believe there would be anything stored on the floor.

[collectivethrust]

I think we get it that you don't like the aircraft.
The photo, as has already been pointed out, is of a prototype it was in the hangar being prepared for a static display, hence no hoist at this point. BTW only took a few minutes to fit.

The cabin is the O&G version mocked up for the SAR, it has the wrong seats, a bulkhead and no sea tray. All will be different in production.

Sadly no has developed a CH47 cabin with the footprint and down wash of a R22 yet. So there will always be a compromise somewhere.

The comments you make are correct about what you see but this is not a SAR AW189.

[jimf671]

Trouble is, there appears to be a bank of 4 seats and a bulkhead in the way. Blind faith will only get you so far. Sooner or later you have to confront the reality that it's too darn small and kit will have to be sacrificed and when that happens, the 'no lesser service' principle falls apart.

By the way, I should have said, all that kit needs to be stowed somewhere where it won't get wet when you bring a casualty on board during wet winching.


The reality is that the AW189 rear cabin is identical in volume to the Pavehawk (without the long range tanks that often sit in the back of the Pavehawk cabin). The differences are that the AW189 cabin has a bulkhead behind the pilots (Why?), is a little bit shorter and a little bit wider, and has a storage area with stretchers and med kit to the centre-rear of the main cabin.

There are four seats across the front and four across the rear. There are two rear-crew and the contracted "Standard MRT Load" is six MRT plus their rucksacks and a pile of other gear, even hot, high and fueled-up.

Of course, that is not an equivalent service. If it was an equivalent service then there would be about ten seats and you could only fill three of them when fueled-up at ISA and 3000'. And of course you would need fuel leaks, electrical fires, an HF aerial in the way of the door, rotor brake failures and a single winch as well.

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

I have a few concerns about the new service but most of them do not centre on the aircraft specs.

- The customer (DfT/MCA) skill set is not appropriate for a 70+% Land SAR service.
- The award price is 20% less than the low end of the contract notice estimate in spite of the number of aircraft now being specified at over 50% more than that originally envisaged. And of course more than 20% less than an incumbent.
- Rear-crew remuneration is not sufficient to realise the stated aim of harvesting the skills of the practitioners in the current service.
- There are indications that rear-crew regulatory supervision is grossly inadequate.
- The MCA-enforced shutthef3ckup training and rules prevent contractor collaboration with SAR partners and incumbent providers to the extent that it has the potential to restrict the contractor's ability to provide an equivalent service from day one.
- At the time of contract award, the contractor was many months behind its competitor on aircraft procurement and still around four months behind later that year. If trailing on this vital issue, what else?
- SAR version AW189 ground clearance is a potential problem for mountain jobs.
- Clarity on the effect of the changes in performance requirements in CAP 999 Version 2 would be helpful.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Google Images '189 SAR' and you'll see the proposal for role equipment and stretcher stowage. Best of luck with that. You'd have more luck putting four elephants into a mini than getting this lot

first response bag, the second response bag, the casualty monitoring system, the defibrillator, the crew's kit bags, the paediatric bag, the smokes, the hi-lines, the life jackets, the chocks, the NVGs, the aircraft documents, the maps, the camera, the medical gloves, the torches (small and large), the spare oxygen, the entonox, the thermal blankets, the body bags, the winching kit, the restraint equipment, the spare winching kit, the rescue strops, the child rescue valise, the splints, the KED and two stretchers

in there. That's the bare minimum kit for providing a SAR service in the UK.
The cupboard looks about the size of an armchair and is blocked by two seats. Where do you put those when you need access? Or the people sitting in them?

Docs and maps will be in the centre console where the pilots can access them (not visible in the pic above).

What, all the 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 for the entire region that you may get scrambled to? That's a big centre console. Perhaps they can store some of the medical kit in it too. :ugh:

Blind faith will only get you so far.

[jeepys]

The bank of four seats may get removed, maybe. Don't forget this picture is not a fully kitted out SAR cab.
I am sure you are aware the 139 has a tunnel through to the boot where they stow the stretchers and other kit.
All the kit mentioned to be carried is currently carried and properly stowed in the 139 which is smaller so I cannot see what the problem is.
As far as maps etc to be carried then I am not sure whether a full set (aviation and OS) will be carried but don't forget we must forward in technology and having a full mapping system both in the front and back to OS level will be provided.

[dingo9]

Oh Jeepys, you've dropped a bomb there. I can't wait to hear VSFs thoughts on these new fangled 'Digital Cockpits' and 'Electronic Flight Bags'. Will never catch on, a mere fad.

[Vie sans frontieres]

The bank of four seats may get removed, maybe.

Do the mountain rescue teams know? That leaves two crash positions for the rearcrew and two available seats. Priceless. :D

More fool you if you choose to get airborne without paper maps and put all your eggs in the basket of electronic mapping.

[jeepys]

VSF,

Am I right in assuming you have seen the SAR 139's up close?

The seats in the 189 pic will not be the seats used for SAR. These are standard O&G pax seats but you already knew that I am sure.
The seats that will most likely be used are the troop seat which are of smaller design, fold up, and you could have a bank of four along the front bulk head, but I am sure you have already thought that one through. You could then have a further two troop seats in the other corners either side of where the tunnel will be through to the boot giving a total of 6 seats in the back, but I am telling you what you already know I guess?

As for total reliance on electronic mapping systems I did not say this is what should be done and I agree only perhaps the fool hardy would do so but with flight mapping systems as good as they are now do you really need to take dozens of charts with you?

I guess you have used a recent electronic flight mapping system displayed on large screen with all CAA and OS maps. It's quick, easy and effective? Tap in the position and hey presto there it is. Eyes can remain outside at low level, situational awareness is improved and therefore a far safer operation, or are you one of the dinosaurs who cannot accept modernisation?

This is happening. You alone are not going to bring the 189 down. If you have not seen one of the SAR 139's up close then I suggest you try and have a look at one before moaning as to where you are going to keep all this kit.
You don't need a SK size helicopter to store all the SAR kit. Nice to have but not essential.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Time will tell. I admire your optimism. Shame you can't acknowledge a touch of realism.

[jeepys]

Yes time will tell and it would seem you have the realism issue together with many others.

This is real, the 189 is real and it will be doing the job sooner or later. It has to.

I remember all the 139 skeptics 7 or so years ago moaning about the same things you are moaning about. After a little bit of work it was doing the job successfully and all the know alls had to get back in their boxes.

Change the record.

[[email protected]]

Eyes can remain outside at low level, situational awareness is improved and therefore a far safer operation, or are you one of the dinosaurs who cannot accept modernisation? well I'm flying an aircraft with a full electronic map system displayed on a large screen and it doesn't keep eyes outside any more than a paper map - less so probably because so much extra info can be displayed (and often is) leading to lack of clarity. We still carry paper maps and charts but maybe we are dinosaurs.

Much has been made of how modern technology is the saviour of UK SAR; it is hyperbole and most of this 'new' technology is old hat - where are the heads-up displays or DNVG in the brave new SAR world? Things that might actually make things safer?

[TwinHueyMan]

GOT IT!

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/6/9/2276966.jpg

[[email protected]]

I remember all the 139 skeptics 7 or so years ago moaning about the same things you are moaning about. After a little bit of work it was doing the job successfully and all the know alls had to get back in their boxes. so we can look forward to the 189 being put into SAR service like the 139 with no night overwater capability because the SAR modes of the FCS weren't certified and the lighting wasn't up to spec?????

Oh and the 139 didn't have to prove how inadequate its ground clearance was for sloping ground (read mountain) landings whereas the 189 will!

[llamaman]

Anyone who claims that digital mapping displays do not constitute progress is, quite franky, talking hoop. Once mastered (which doesn't take long) the increased situational awareness, especially during times of high workload, is of great value. A good example is conducting a low-level abort due to poor weather and having to quickly adjust from working on VFR to IFR charts. This previously involved scrabbling around in the cockpit changing and re-folding maps and quickly having to transfer your position to the new chart. All quite do-able I admit but far simpler when using a modern digital display that simply involves a couple of presses of a button.

Also, having to carry charts in case the system dumps is a bit of a red herring. In the early days of Merlin this is what regulalrly happened until people realised how rare such an event was. I can recall many more examples of maps being lost prior to take-off or being sucked out of open windows/cabin doors than digital mapping systems going tits-up.

[[email protected]]

llamaman - the claim was made that digital mapping displays kept eyes out of the cockpit more - which isn't true. The shiny TV screen is an eye-magnet for the handling pilot as well as the NHP.

Your example of aborting VFR to IFR is a valid one where just changing the scale of your map with a button press makes life much simpler.

[Margins]

Oh and the 139 didn't have to prove how inadequate its ground clearance was for sloping ground (read mountain) landings whereas the 189 will!


http://www.ukemergencyaviation.co.uk/user/cimage/G-CGOC-003.jpg


Is S92 griund clearance significantly different?

[Vie sans frontieres]

About one jagged rock's difference I reckon (in dinosaur measurements).

[Margins]

Sure, after you crashed the antennas and the search light.

[Margins]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8293/7826029776_f8929aac0e_z.jpg

[Vie sans frontieres]

A good quality crewman will talk the aircraft down such that protrusions from the underside of the aircraft (aerials, nightsuns etc) don't hit the rocks that may form part of the uneven surface. However when the entire belly of the aircraft is so close to even the flattest of surfaces, as appears to be the case with the 189, your options are going to be much more limited. Hope the MRTs enjoy hover jumping.

[SeaKingDriver]

The S92s seem to have been getting on up there alright so far? Anyone who actually knows care to comment?:confused:

[jimf671]

Oh and the 139 didn't have to prove how inadequate its ground clearance was for sloping ground (read mountain) landings whereas the 189 will!

Are you referring to the Hampshire and Dorset mountains? :)

[jimf671]

The S92s seem to have been getting on up there alright so far? Anyone who actually knows care to comment?:confused:


The toys hanging under the S-92 are an ongoing problem that affects choices for landings and partial landings.

Downwash from a 12 tonne aircraft is always ... em ... noticeable. If power is applied to maintain ground clearance of a landed aircraft then working around the aircraft becomes more difficult. However, if you work with S-92 regularly, that isn't news!


https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/988654_496455723760070_960188677_n.jpg?oh=d7d23f97c7e3c52fb1 1ba1d09a5ab5a8&oe=54C70872&__gda__=1421244107_c3fbdda46b06cf84c1cfe5fb280c373a

[jeepys]

Crab,

I assume you don't use a digital mapping system then because if you did/have you would realise your comments have no relevance.
Your eyes spend less time buried in the cockpit as all that is required is a quick glimpse just like looking at your instruments. You cannot do that with a map/chart and I will not even mention about referring to a map/chart at night, low level, poor vis.

You carry on with your hard copies, they work but one day if you get to try a good digital mapping system properly then go on be a devil and have a go. You don't need to tell anyone.

Do any of your crewman carry iPads?

[llamaman]

Jimf

Are you referring to the Hampshire and Dorset mountains?

The 189 will be operating in the Scottish and Welsh mountains out of Inverness/Prestwick/St. Athan (eventually ;)) Ground clearance will be an issue but, as with the introduction of any new aircraft, techniques will be adapted to suit.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Yes they will, by asking the passengers to jump out in the low hover. Both of them!

[jimf671]

Yes they will, by asking the passengers to jump out in the low hover. Both of them!


Take a Wessex. :E

Make it wider. Give it two big unobstructed doors. A monster fuel tank. Increase the power by 150%. Increase the cruising speed by 40+%. Give it 21st century avionics. :ok:

Reduce ground clearance. :ugh:

Keep the pilots isolated from the workers. ;)

[[email protected]]

A great way to turn a rescuer into a casualty is to start hover-jumping MRT in mountainous terrain!

[Vie sans frontieres]

For the AW189 pilot who's worried about his licence and doesn't want to risk bending the airframe, it may be the preferred option.

[jimf671]

I did hang and drop from a SK door 10 feet above the Liathach Pinnacles once about 25 years ago. Wouldn't want it to be routine though.

[3D CAM]

P3

Exactly!!!!:D Or are we missing something?
But.... it is very low!
3D

[Vie sans frontieres]

Yes, you are missing something. The preferred option is for a helicopter to land and deplane/emplane its passengers quickly and with minimal risk. As soon as you introduce winching, it's an acknowledgement that the helicopter can't land. Winching increases risk and prolongs the evolution, especially if by some miracle they do manage to squeeze six into the back of the 189 and all six need to be winched down. Hover jumping is an uncomfortable but sometimes an expedient option if lots of people and kit are to be deployed.

[snakepit]

I strongly suspect that it would be embarrassing to call it hover jumping from the 2 foot high 189 cabin floor. It's about twice as high getting out of a Sea King when it's actually landed!

[jimf671]

I strongly suspect that it would be embarrassing to call it hover jumping from the 2 foot high 189 cabin floor. It's about twice as high getting out of a Sea King when it's actually landed!

Good point and one with which I am very familiar. We are faced with a situation where team members under about 165cm will be able to enter a landed aircraft unaided. :cool:

[jimf671]

... if by some miracle they do manage to squeeze six into the back of the 189 and all six need to be winched down ...


This is an sixteen seat aircraft with options for eighteen or twelve seats. It is expected that there will be eight crashproof utility seats, plenty floor space and two crew belts in the UK SAR version.

"All On State Airborne Systems must be capable of deploying from or retrieving to the Aircraft an MRT Standard Load in a single trip and from the air or on the ground."

"All On State Airborne Systems must be capable of retaining the Hover .. outside of Ground Effect whilst delivering an MRT Standard Load at or below 4000ft amsl at ISA +15 degrees centigrade in still air; and .. with 30 minutes SAR Endurance remaining, at the location of any SAR Incident in the Mountainous Regions of the UK SRR."

"MRT Standard Load" means a team comprising of six members at 80kg each, plus 25kg for hill bags."

Estimates by experienced SAR personnel who have flown this aircraft suggest it will be able to deliver significantly more than contractually required.

Two crew on belts and all seats occupied by MRT (sound familiar) provides for a means of achieving this. The regulator has already introduced the idea of operating for SAR with "Passengers not secured in seats".

Do try to keep up mate.

[Vie sans frontieres]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There's a world of difference between the usefulness of a passenger's ability to quote from glossy brochures or obscure contract documents and an operator's practical realisation that what has been advertised may not actually work.


Read back just a page or two and you'll see a quiet acknowledgement that the number of seats quoted for the SAR variant may well be reduced. Whether it's by two or four (from the quoted six), it's still below what is described as a standard load. It will simply not be possible to operate this aircraft effectively in the SAR role if almost all the kit (medical and otherwise) required to do the job is stuck in a closet behind two seats that may or may not be occupied. Those seats have to go. Having power in hand will make bugger all difference if you can't seat the personnel to be carried.


Suggesting that passengers may be permitted to be carried insecure and not seated in hostile flying environments is one of the barmiest ideas I've heard yet. If you're suggesting they will be secured on the floor using floor belts then that's a lot of holes in the wet fit floor required to access the floor points where those belts would be attached.

[[email protected]]

And a very retrograde step since we have been trying to protect our pax with crashworthy seats for many years - to the extent that we have rules about what can and cannot be stowed underneath any occupied seats.

Going back to sitting on a floor is just not acceptable except in extremis to save many lives by packing people into the back of the aircraft.

The first legal action following a heavy landing which caused a pax back injury would soon prove the folly of cutting corners - this new SAR contract is supposed to be about doing things properly.

[jeepys]

VSF,

the cabin of the 189 is large enough to have four seats across the front bulkhead with then 2 seats in either corner at the rear. The tunnel access from the cabin through to the boot is then open and accessible between these two seats.

In the picture a page or two back where you see the row of four seats, simply take out the middle two for the tunnel access. The seats in the pic are standard pax seats also.

Not knowing for definite whether this is how the SAR cab will be but it's what AW did with the 139.

[jimf671]

... Read back just a page or two and you'll see a quiet acknowledgement that the number of seats quoted for the SAR variant may well be reduced. Whether it's by two or four (from the quoted six), it's still below what is described as a standard load. It will simply not be possible to operate this aircraft effectively in the SAR role if almost all the kit (medical and otherwise) required to do the job is stuck in a closet behind two seats that may or may not be occupied. Those seats have to go. Having power in hand will make bugger all difference if you can't seat the personnel to be carried. ...


The seats will have to be there for all of those that the operator is contracted to carry.

The AW189 is a large SAR aircraft by world standards.

(The presentation I saw last week from AW about the 169 showed layouts with FOUR seats and one stretcher. This is in an aircraft with a cabin volume of 6.3m3 compared to the 189's 11.2m3.)


... Suggesting that passengers may be permitted to be carried insecure and not seated in hostile flying environments is one of the barmiest ideas I've heard yet. ...

Some years ago in a glen not far from here, a Bristow aircraft (S-61N) with a full crew, operating in winter conditions and darkness, recovered 23 MR and one deceased person from the hill in a single flight. Not something that happens every week and not a pre-planned event but necessary at times. Other instances include 17 MR in a Sea King, 17 MR in a S-92 and 14 rescuees in a S-92.

The Bristow website details 3 stretchers and 10 seats in the S-92 but acknowledges the need for up to 21 persons. For the AW189, 2 stretchers and 6 seats but up to 16 persons.


... If you're suggesting they will be secured on the floor using floor belts then that's a lot of holes in the wet fit floor required to access the floor points where those belts would be attached.

There is no record of a suggestion of passengers on belts or of floor belts.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Jeepys

Yes, you said that. If those two seats are removed that will leave six - two crash positions for the rearcrew and four for pax. That's two less than the contract appears to demand for a MRT.

Jimf671

Glossy brochures and websites naturally put the best possible spin on an aircraft's performance and characteristics. Reality often turns out to be considerably different. Simply regurgitating that website information does not put you 'in the know'. In fact, it gives the opposite impression. Likewise, quoting extreme examples of aircraft and crews exploring the envelope to get the job done in extremis is not a good way of winning an argument about day to day capability.


If you weren't suggesting that floor belts were being proposed, then you can only have meant that passengers should be routinely insecure in the back of the aircraft. Who in their right mind would advocate that? Only someone without a clue about helicopters.

[cyclic]

I hear that Bristow may have had a little trouble with one of their 189 gearboxes?

[jimf671]

If you weren't suggesting that floor belts were being proposed, then you can only have meant that passengers should be routinely insecure in the back of the aircraft. Who in their right mind would advocate that? Only someone without a clue about helicopters.

Yes, I understand that you, Crab and others are against this idea and we have all read that several times but I also understand that nobody has proposed it. :ugh:




Glossy brochures and websites naturally put the best possible spin on an aircraft's performance and characteristics. Reality often turns out to be considerably different. Simply regurgitating that website information does not put you 'in the know'. In fact, it gives the opposite impression. Likewise, quoting extreme examples of aircraft and crews exploring the envelope to get the job done in extremis is not a good way of winning an argument about day to day capability.

OK Vie, I think I am getting the picture. I should not be fooled by anything learned about SAR helicopters from direct experience or anyone in the SAR community or the helicopter industry in the UK or elsewhere and just come straight to you. That makes perfect sense. :hmm:

[Vie sans frontieres]

Please explain what you're on about in post number 70 then when you say the regulator has introduced the idea of passengers not secured in seats.

[jimf671]

Please explain what you're on about in post number 70 then when you say the regulator has introduced the idea of passengers not secured in seats.

Certainly.

'CAP 999, Helicopter Search and Rescue (SAR) in the UK - National Approval Guidance', has so far appeared in public in two forms. Version 2, in 2014, now puts the responsibility on the AOC holder to "request relevant permissions and exemptions from the regulations as appropriate to their SAR operational or training requirements". However, version 1, in 2010, at Appendix 1, listed 24 'Exemptions from Regulations'.

Amongst those exemptions, at Item 15, was the 'Alleviation from Requirements' of "Passengers not secured in seats. Alternative procedures must be established where there are insufficient seats available."

[Vie sans frontieres]

Ok, that can only be in extremis when needs must and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion which is about the number of seats potentially available for the deployment and recovery of passengers during training and routine SAR Ops. It would be grossly irresponsible to make insecure passengers a day to day SOP.

The bottom line is the MRT standard load is six, the rearcrew need two seats, the role equipment would be inaccessible if all six remaining passenger seats were in position so two need to be removed. Therefore the MRT standard load requirement of the contract can't be met. Someone needs to have a rethink. Fast.

[John Eacott]

Ok, that can only be in extremis when needs must and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion which is about the number of seats potentially available for the deployment and recovery of passengers during training and routine SAR Ops. It would be grossly irresponsible to make insecure passengers a day to day SOP.

The bottom line is the MRT standard load is six, the rearcrew need two seats, the role equipment would be inaccessible if all six remaining passenger seats were in position so two need to be removed. Therefore the MRT standard load requirement of the contract can't be met. Someone needs to have a rethink. Fast.

VSF,

the cabin of the 189 is large enough to have four seats across the front bulkhead with then 2 seats in either corner at the rear. The tunnel access from the cabin through to the boot is then open and accessible between these two seats.

In the picture a page or two back where you see the row of four seats, simply take out the middle two for the tunnel access. The seats in the pic are standard pax seats also.

Not knowing for definite whether this is how the SAR cab will be but it's what AW did with the 139.

vsf,

I'm well away from this discussion, but even I can see that you appear not to want to hear what others say.

Six seats, all proper crew crashworthy types, four facing aft behind the drivers and two fwd facing with gear access between them in the AW139. In the AW189 there is a cabin much larger than currently exists for SAR in most of the rest of the world save the S92 and the Sea King, with ample room for extra seats to meet the contract criteria. Only you seem determined to second guess the contract winners (Bristow) and constantly surmise configurations based on nothing but your thoughts.

I'd love to fly the AW189 and it sounds fit for purpose, but your constant nay-saying based on misinterpretation and/or shear bloodymindedness is beginning to grate.

[Vie sans frontieres]

John

So where do the rearcrew sit when 6 MRT (the standard load) occupy the six seats? Or if all eight seats are in, how do the rearcrew access items of role equipment?

Do not confuse SAR requirements in the wider world with those in the UK. Irrespective of the diverse nature of the SAR region, the new contract has to deliver on its promise of no reduction in quality of service - one aspect of that is kit carried to deal with all manner of rescue and/or medical scenarios.

[noooby]

Put the other two seats in one of the other two completely empty rows!

There is room for 18 seats in there. Fitting 8 AND having access to all the SAR goodies won't be a problem.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Thanks for the comic relief noooby. I needed that.

[jimf671]

Now let me see.

The basics of the MRT std load thing is that the contract requires that the aircraft has the capability to deploy or recover a party of 6 of us, in the air or on the ground, at 4000' in certain conditions.

At this point, one of two scenarios is normally in place.
- The cas/misper has not yet been accessed: and no role eqpt is yet req'd from storage
- The cas/misper has already been evacuated: and the role eqpt has already been stored or unloaded at the HLS

(The second scenario is less likely since we have probably been left to walk home.)

In the unusual scenario of 6 MRT onboard and the storage area needs accessed then one or both rear crew are clearly not in seats and the access problem is reduced or eliminated. I have been asked to move around in the cabin of a Sea King many times and I expect it to be no different in an AW189.

Occasionally, there will be cas/misper and MRT in the cabin and packed in any way they will fit because it would not be sensible to leave people on the hill in bad conditions. That's why there has been a reference to passengers not secured in seat, why the Bristow website refers to up to 16 persons, and why I described such occasions above. On most of those occasions, patient condition will normally be hypothermia treated by squeezing them in with hot sweaty smelly MRT with the cabin heater on. On the rare occasions when more sophisticated medical care is necessary, people will use their initiative (which normally includes chucking MRT out at the earliest opportunity).

[[email protected]]

Crab.......... come on. Making sure there is no SAR kit under a canvas Seaking PAX seat does not make it "crashworthy" quite right but putting stuff under it makes it very un-crashworthy - cast your mind back to the Wessex that went into the lake in Snowdonia many years ago - that killed some cadets who were sitting in seats that had kit stored underneath them and this was a major contributory factor to their deaths because there was no 'planned progressive failure' of the seat which might have absorbed some of the impact. The seats in the SK are the same as the Wessex which is why the pax are protected now by the 'no kit under the seats' rule. Not crashworthy per se but much less un-crashworthy than with kit underneath.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Jimf671

I've changed my mind. I think you had better stick to quoting directly from websites and glossy brochures after all. That last post was pure gibberish in virtually every respect. You're not aircrew so please stop pretending you understand how they operate, their thought processes and how and when they utilise their resources.

You cannot temporarily remove seats that are designated crash positions. Should sh1t happen, no matter how quick the mechanism is, you will never get them re-fitted and the rearcrew strapped in in time unless you have thousands of feet to play with.

[Um... lifting...]

It ain't rocket surgery.

_/----\_
/_P_P_\
|x x x C|
[x
[x
|x-----C|]
-\ KIT /-]

[Vie sans frontieres]

I think you may need rocket surgery (sic) to place two stretchered casualties on the floor in that seat configuration.

[Sandy Toad]

Vie. Have you actually sat in an empty AW189!

[Vie sans frontieres]

No, but I can read. Dimensions are one aspect of a product's technical data that aren't going to change on a daily basis. The entire width of the cabin will be required to comfortably load a casualty in a stretcher widthways.

[Um... lifting...]

I think you may need rocket surgery (sic) to place two stretchered casualties on the floor in that seat configuration.


No I won't, because I won't be doing it. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

It's laudable that you can read technical data, it's a dying art.

So is reading a specification.

Now, I don't know if it actually can work or not, and I have no dog in this fight, but there is usually more than one way to satisfy a spec and there are a number of things one can do with the configuration requirements here.

[[email protected]]

but there is usually more than one way to satisfy a spec that's called a fudge and is a tactic employed when the actual intent of a spec can't be met - a bit like getting a landrover up the ramp into a Merlin(having to take the windscreen off and deflate the tyres) or getting 6 troops into a Wildcat (using Gurkhas because they are smaller).

We might see the introduction of a smaller stretcher (OK unless you are 6'7"), a diagonal loading plan or all sorts of other fudges - the real fun is going to be with a bariatric patient;)

[soggyboxers]

This thread seems to have been taken over by a couple of disaffected individuals who are just basing all sorts of opinion based on nothing but speculation and supposition :ugh:. Why not just wait and see what the finalised cabin fit looks like and then start your moaning :yuk:

[[email protected]]

Why not just wait and see what the finalised cabin fit looks like and then start your moaning because then it's too late to ask questions and have the discussion - at the point when it gets to the front line it will be a done deal and only minor feckling will be possible with the kit.

If by disaffected you mean 'unwilling to just believe the hype and spin from various PR machines and glossy brochures' then I guess the cap fits.

[jimf671]

Be quiet. Crab has bought a barbecue and is looking forward to his weekends off next spring.

[[email protected]]

Already enjoying my weekends off:ok:

[dClbydalpha]

... the role equipment would be inaccessible if all six remaining passenger seats were in position so two need to be removed ...is it not possible to fold the seat backs to give access to the equipment?

[Vie sans frontieres]

Not if someone's already sitting in it. Plus, that seat would need to be a readily available crash position. However clever a foldaway mechanism might be, it would still take an unacceptably long amount of time for the crewman/men to remove himself/themselves from the role equipment closet, re-fit the seat/seats, sit down and strap in.

[dClbydalpha]

What is defined as an unacceptable amount of time? How long does it normally take to get say from a winching position to fully strapped in - is this a measure of acceptable? I am sure a mechanism exists that allows a seat back to be reinstated to an upright position from folded with only a couple of actions, no need to re-fit just unfold. I don't think, from what I've seen, that the crewmember has to get into the equipment storage area.

For my understanding, is it normal to access equipment during flight in any other SAR aircraft? In general is there a need for someone to be unseated whilst reconfiguring the cabin equipment for those aircraft. Or is everybody fully strapped in all the time.

[jeepys]

Quote:

because then it's too late to ask questions and have the discussion - at the point when it gets to the front line it will be a done deal and only minor feckling will be possible with the kit.

Crab, do you honestly think then that your comments and opinions are going to change the AW design layout? We all know you think your opinions are of the highest order but AW will not change the 189 design for you or anyone else on this forum.

If you want to be part of it rather than slate it then join Bristows.

Have you seen a 189 up close yet???

[Vie sans frontieres]

Kit may be required at any stage - pre, post and during rescue (although obviously not during winching). It would depend upon the aircraft type whether the rearcrew have to unstrap to retrieve it.

In the event of an emergency landing/ditching, every second counts for crewmen trying to get into their crash positions and bracing for impact. A lot of SAR takes place at 200' or below. That's never going to give enough time to re-fold a seat into its housing (which may be fodded with dirt or debris or simply awkward to re-seat), untangle the four point harness, secure oneself and brace.

[[email protected]]

AW will not change the 189 design for you or anyone else on this forum. no, really??? This is a discussion forum (among other things) so why shouldn't we examine the pros and cons of various cabin layouts and consider their shortcomings (or otherwise)?

Not sure who appointed you the thought-police but expressing an opinion isn't illegal (certainly not one about helicopters anyway) yet.

If no-one wants to listen to experienced SAR operators, that's fine with me - I don't profess to have the answer to everything on SAR but perhaps someone listening to criticism or opinion might not have put the 139 into service in the state it was in.

Do we have to accept a dog's breakfast of an aircraft just because there are economic pressures to get it in on time to avoid contractual penalties?

[OHU]

Hey guys,

just took a look at the AW189 on the Helitech last Week in Amsterdam. It was a Bel-Air one from Denmark. Very impressive and nice Bird.:ok:

I applied there wenn they where looking for Pilots&CoPilots this Summer but never get contacted:(

Is anyone of you a Employee of Bel-Air?

[jimf671]

... Do we have to accept a dog's breakfast of an aircraft just because there are economic pressures to get it in on time to avoid contractual penalties?


I don't think that's where we are.

I think that the contract tech spec and the various regs that fall from that enforce some aspects of the kit list. Then each of the bidders came to the party with different experience of SAR, in the UK and elsewhere, which influenced their interpretations. As I understand it, in relation to the matters you raise, the two finalists had different approaches that appeared to reflect their recent SAR experience and the aircraft they used.

To be fair to Bristow, they have a history of pushing the spec ahead of MCA requirements. Last year, the GAP aircraft spec took the leap of moving to the Main contract requirements. Rumour has it that the spec may move forward yet again shortly without anyone pushing an arm up their back.

[[email protected]]

You should become more balanced and less one sided. now where would be the fun in that?

In general my criticisms have been of the corporate nature and pressures thereby imposed in civsar - not of the crews - that, I suspect is why I am unpopular; just trying to keep people honest:ok:

Additionally I have questioned the claims made about equipment and its claimed superiority, capability and suitability for the UKSAR environment.

Sadly all people read in my posts is the bits they don't like and let that help them ignore some valid arguments - hence I have established a reputation as a civsar-basher which is broadly unfair.

I have stoutly defended RAF SAR which, as the major player in UKSAR for many years, has established and maintained the standard to which the modern service will be compared - that is what has got lots of backs up because it is true but some don't want to accept it.

Btw - even I know RN SAR is Grey and RED:ok:

Thank you for your sentiments but the SAR ship has sailed for me.

Jim, don't forget the political pressures and the inevitable insistence on using AW products for some of the solution. The cabin size has always been an issue, not only in terms of working height but also of storage space - it's what happens when you take a corporate helicopter and try to turn it into a SAR helicopter.

[jeepys]

Crab,

can you answer the question that you and VSF keep avoiding which is, have you seen a 189 up close in the flesh?

The RAF and RN have done and continue to do a great job providing SAR for the UK which I agree is a gold standard and one which Bristow can aspire to emulate but time moves on. The SK cannot go on forever and thankfully nor can you.
I am not saying that change is always for the better, in fact it is often for the worse when squeezed budgets dictate a new regime but both you and I do not really know how all this is going to pan out.

Introducing a new a/c straight into a harsh environment for state sar is a gamble I know but in time it will develop into a good cab I am sure. You may argue that it should have time in other theatre of operations to iron out it's problems before being accepted for SAR but there was no time for this.

Go back a few years and tell us all how you would have bid for the contract using civvy a/c on a tight budget.

You may not think it's morally right to take SAR away from you and give it to a private operation for remuneration but it's happened and we must accept that.

Now, can you answer my first question please.

[Evil Twin]

Geez are you lot still b1tching at each other? I was interested in the 189, purely from a bystanders point of view but we're up to 6 pages of sniping at each other with very little tech detail of the aircraft.

Why not just agree to disagree FFS

[Sandy Toad]

AW189 started life as a military aircraft (AW149) not a corporate aircraft.
8 Square Metres of cabin floor and nearly 3 more storage into the baggage bay, surely someone can find a workable solution!

[jimf671]

Yes. Only 6 pages.

On here, that's called restraint.

[Sumpor Stylee]

As stated before by Philip Hammond, any bid not including an AW product built at Yeovil (read AW189.....) was not going to be selected. Clear enough?

[Vie sans frontieres]

Jeepys

Please see post number 92 then the first word of my response in post 93. How then have I avoided that question?

You seem very emotionally involved in the SAR 189 project. Perhaps that's why you can see nothing wrong with your fingers crossed, everything should be ok, it'll be a good SAR cab given enough time statement. There isn't time. It needs to be capable of providing equivalent or better service from the off.

[[email protected]]

Jeepys - I can only go on what Bristow were showcasing on their roadshows for the managed transition - where most of the SAR kit was shoved down the tail (sorry accessed when required from the special SAR equipment storage area).

I would have gone for a full S92 fleet but, as sumpor stylee has said, that wasn't allowed so we have a re-imagined SAR helicopter called the 189 - which isn't actually certified in the SAR role yet is supposed to be online in several bases next year.

This must be costing Bristow money already as they have had to train crews on S92 who were destined for the 189 - they will then have to convert again when the aircraft becomes available.

[jeepys]

Yes I agree a nationwide S92 fleet would have been a better option but I am sure the coffers would not allow as this was one of the options originally. If the state does not want to pay for the better option then there is nothing we can do about it.

Although the 189 SAR is not yet certified and yes we all know there are likely to be teething problems for maybe a while to come but it is maybe the best we can get for the money unless you have any other cabs in mind.

Judging the 189 cab from a computer generated picture will not give you a realistic idea of the cabin size. Granted it's not the size of the SK but nonetheless I think you will find it bigger than you are thinking/criticising.

[P3 Bellows]

This must be costing Bristow money already as they have had to train crews on S92 who were destined for the 189 - they will then have to convert again when the aircraft becomes available.

Crab, you may be right but are you saying Bristow are all the bastards or the UK government.

If the UK government are at fault then where does this leave Bristow in your eyes?

If it is the UK government at fault ............ well you work for them ........

What it boils down to is this a commercial cock up or a government cock up.

If the answer is government cock up then this could well have been the RAF/RN solution.

Well then ............... paint it yellow and it will become the dogs bolleaux

[jeepys]

VSF, and what is the width of the 189 cabin?

I have never thought or indicated that there will be nothing wrong with the 189. I am not that naive to think it's all going to plan from the start.

What you have misinterpreted is my point that as long as my arse points down the nations SAR is going to be run by Bristows. It is now a commercial venture and whether that's good or bad the UK government have decided that's how it is to be.
The money available for the contract is not enough for S92 nationwide but a mix of 92 and 189 is maybe the best we can get for the money. What else would you recommend in the price bracket of a 189?

You and a few others can criticise all day long about AW, CivSar, Bristows, big issue sellers and wearing trousers that start from the crutch but you are not going to change anything. Whilst the government like the odd U turn I don't think they will read yours and Crabs posts and say 'bloody hell what have we done. Better call Crab, VSF and Co and reinstate the RAF. God save the Queen'.

Sorry to be of the forward thinking crew but if we all had a negative attitude to change whether good or bad then we would still be living in caves and clubbing animals.

[[email protected]]

P3 - I don't think any of the parties involved are bastards - it's just a reality of commercial and political pressures.

All the bidders wanted to win and knew that cost would be an issue with a cash-strapped government.

The government are always under pressure to secure UK-based jobs (how many times has AW been supported) and so an AW product was always going to be part of the solution (although not putting all your eggs in one basket - or one aircraft type - given problems with other fleets over the years was probably a good idea).

Was it a good idea to go for an aircraft that hadn't been built or proven? Time will tell but if you have to have something from the AW stable and the 139 has already attracted criticism as a SAR aircraft, what choice do you have?

Remember that this whole process wasn't really a government idea, it was born out of a very ambitious Chief CG's desire to build an empire and aided by the Afghan-centric view of the MoD that decided that SAR wasn't core business.

Add in the fact that the Sea King was fast approaching its lifex with zero money for a replacement and you end up with a perfect storm where the easy option is to go for PFI, get SAR off the MoD books where spiralling costs of waging war are causing problems and generate /protect jobs in the UK.

The UK SAR contract provides a superb showcase for Bristow and they will do everything they can to make it work (or, cynically, to make it looks like it works) because the UK model could be sold to other governments around the world as a proven one. Again, this is just commercial reality.

So, no cock-ups, just situations conspiring to produce a decision from government to commercialise UK SAR rather than there being an overriding need to improve UK SAR by putting into the private sector.

That is what hurts the most, that mil SAR has done such a sterling job for so many years and just been consigned to the scrap heap without even being allowed to offer a home-grown solution.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Jeepys

The cabin width looks like 2.4m externally and 2.16m internally - that's the important dimension and as everyone knows, the dimension of the empty cabin space does not equate to the space you eventually end up having to work with once internal structures and fittings like wet fit floors, floor points etc are fitted. There will be floor points, won't there, or is that the next surprise?

Not that it's relevant to a discussion about the 189 but my solution would not have involved the total annihilation of front-line, every day involvement of military SAR personnel. Remember military crews were an important if complicated element of the original SARH plan. Removing the military's proven ability to select and train SAR buoys from scratch turns off the taps that the MCA flights have relied upon for decades and is extremely myopic of the government. This is frucked up.

[jeepys]

Blimey Crab a sensible post without a civvy or 189 bashing in sight, steady on old boy.

Quote:
Was it a good idea to go for an aircraft that hadn't been built or proven? Time will tell but if you have to have something from the AW stable and the 139 has already attracted criticism as a SAR aircraft, what choice do you have?

Exactly, what choice do we have? What other a/c will fit this bill with a price tag equal to or less than the 189?

We all know the RAF/RN have done a great job and have built a gold standard model for which all the crews over the years have contributed to not least yourself. Nobody should be disputing that and I know it must hurt to see it go to an organisation that you feel may not be able to continue to offer the high class service. It's your headshed, the CG top dogs and ministers that have forced this, not pprune contributors.

[jeepys]

That's a width of over 7ft. What is the length of your stretcher?

The internal width of the 189 should not change a great deal if at all in some areas if you look at the 139 model. The floor points will be fitted in the floor and will not therefore reduce the width. The sea tray we will have to wait and see but again if it follows the 139 model there will be no reduction of width between the two sliding doors area. Granted you won't be able to have a party in there but it will work.

I agree with your opinion about the way military SAR has been seemingly dumped without thought but as I just said previously it's your bosses and other ministers that need consulting. If you want to vent your frustration on somebody start with them. Bristows are simply taking advantage of a contract won and will no doubt do their best in providing a good service. Until they are up and running none of us can really slate the service that has not even started yet.

There have been quotes to suggest that the service must be equal or better than the current system from the outset which I am sure is the plan but it's not often that a takeover of any kind is produces the said results from day 1.
I am sure the mil SAR had it's teething problems all those decades ago.

I agree with you completely that the mil will soon have a limited/no ability to select, train and release crews for the UK SAR. The mil model is second to none and one which must be preserved as much as poss in the new system.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Well it's nice to find a bit of common ground on something. The original point about the width, specifically, was that someone a while back suggested inserting seats along the port side of the aircraft. A 6'6 stretcher would not fit widthways in that circumstance.

[jimf671]

All S-92? I don't think so.

OK for an emergency measure if 189 slips but not as credible for mountain work. It's a good a/c but it's still a 12 tonne bus.

The 189 is the only show in town. Size, power, accommodation, safety, avionics: somebody tell me where the alternative is coming from certified before Apr 2015?

[jimf671]

Two stretchers length-wise should still fit and I believe that was part of an AW mock-up at an early stage. Probably difficult with a MacInnes but easy with Tyromont.

[Vie sans frontieres]

How can you be so certain about an aircraft that has yet to be flown in the mountains? What are its handling characteristics like? How stable is it in the hover? How does it respond to turbulence?

Hoping desperately that stretchers can be squeezed in is great until you actually have to try and perform a medical intervention. Have you tried doing an anaesthetist's grip from anywhere other than the head end?

[9Aplus]

Ground clearance ;)

http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww304/d9aplus/safety/AW189_0310_zps6f5cef02.jpg (http://s730.photobucket.com/user/d9aplus/media/safety/AW189_0310_zps6f5cef02.jpg.html)

http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww304/d9aplus/safety/AW189_0309_zps185e4b92.jpg (http://s730.photobucket.com/user/d9aplus/media/safety/AW189_0309_zps185e4b92.jpg.html)

[[email protected]]

I know it must hurt to see it go to an organisation that you feel may not be able to continue to offer the high class service I don't think that, but I do feel they will be constrained at every turn by the limitations of the aircraft, the poor regard (particularly in financial terms) the rearcrew are held in, the shrinking MCA, the training burden and the lack of real understanding of UKSAR by the CAA/EASA.

There are a lot of top operators who will be working for Bristow in UKSAR, both front and back - I just hope that the joy of doing such a rewarding job isn't mired by financial penny-pinching and out-dated attitudes to cabin crew (especially from some of the pilots). Pop quiz - which mil SAR flts have a separate crewroom for rearcrew and pilots;)

Jim - the 189 is a modern helicopter and will therefore have a high disc loading (AUM/Disc area) so it will have a fierce downwash regardless of being lighter than the S92. As engines have become more powerful it has allowed designers to reduce the size of the rotors and push air quicker through the fan - that equals faster downwash.

[Margins]

the 189 is a modern helicopter and will therefore have a high disc loading (AUM/Disc area) so it will have a fierce downwash regardless of being lighter than the S92. As engines have become more powerful it has allowed designers to reduce the size of the rotors and push air quicker through the fan - that equals faster downwash.

S92 disc loading = 51.91 kg/m2

AW189 disc loading = 49.58 kg/m2

[tottigol]

9APlus, those pictures show the standard offshore configuration. The SAR configuration has a deeper belly due to the additional fuel tankage.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/AgustaWestland-AW-189/2498883/L/&sid=dd6e7f0c275404544ddde8c002e04d28

[9Aplus]

Yes, that may be the case. My impression was, that only emerg. floats
are packed with more ground clearance, all in case you compare demo unit from page two#22 :E

[jimf671]

Crab,

Are you saying we need an "old helicopter"?

If the UK Mil was going to carry on SARing what would be your aircraft of choice - the Wessex?

21st century Wessex (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/538805-bristow-aw189-4.html#post8699286). :ok:


... ... ...

Jim - the 189 is a modern helicopter and will therefore have a high disc loading (AUM/Disc area) so it will have a fierce downwash regardless of being lighter than the S92. As engines have become more powerful it has allowed designers to reduce the size of the rotors and push air quicker through the fan - that equals faster downwash.

20 minutes ago, I wrote to a MR colleague: "Kintail have done a lot of helicopter training with both Sea King and S-92, pushing the boundaries of regulatory training restrictions, taking the downwash issue on board, and doing lots of Highline in the most extreme circumstances. Our approach to the downwash issue has been along the lines of 'train hard, fight easy' and I would encourage all teams to take that same approach as we near the roll-out of the new service."


How can you be so certain about an aircraft that has yet to be flown in the mountains? What are its handling characteristics like? How stable is it in the hover? How does it respond to turbulence?

My level of confidence in those matters is driven principally by the words of highly qualified informants :ok: who have comprehensive SAR flying experience and experience of flying the AW189 prototypes. Supporting evidence includes the family history (AW149 & AW139), the spec, and the manner in which aspects of that spec exceed the DfT spec.


Hoping desperately that stretchers can be squeezed in is great until you actually have to try and perform a medical intervention. Have you tried doing an anaesthetist's grip from anywhere other than the head end?

It is worth noting that MERT guys talk of Merlin being too small and only a Chinook will do when there is serious work to do. Nothing will ever be big enough in UK SAR. :ugh:


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

Published rear cabin interior dimensions in the AW189.
Cabin max length 3.47m
Cabin max width 2.43m
Cabin max height 1.42m
Cabin volume 11.2m3

(The AW149 cabin is slightly longer due to the absence of a front bulkhead. The volume is 11.6m3. Milanese Pavehawk.)

[[email protected]]

Apart from being a bit on the slow side, the Wessex was an awesome SAR helicopter, especially for mountain work - it had a cabin you could work in standing up, excellent single engine capability and was an incredibly stable winching platform. It saved more lives in its time than the 189 probably ever will:ok:

My level of confidence in those matters is driven principally by the words of highly qualified informants who have comprehensive SAR flying experience and experience of flying the AW189 prototypes. Supporting evidence includes the family history (AW149 & AW139), the spec, and the manner in which aspects of that spec exceed the DfT spec. Jim, any of those guys flown it in the mountains at night or on NVG anywhere yet?

[Vie sans frontieres]

My level of confidence in those matters is driven principally by the words of highly qualified informants who have comprehensive SAR flying experience and experience of flying the AW189 prototypes. Do you not think that these guys might have an interest in speaking positively about their new baby? Of course they're going to big it up.

None of us have first hand experience of its performance (and more to the point, its quirks) so declaring it, 'the only show in town' is crazy. What's it like when winching? How does the downwash affect what's on the cable? Does the hi-line have a habit of being pushed towards the tail rotor? Can the cable get inadvertently wrapped round the FLIR/nightsun/undercarriage/aeriels etc? What about at night? Is the illumination sufficient 200' below the aircraft? How much height does it lose on a downwind flyaway? And we haven't even started to talk about its overwater performance.

You don't know the answer to any of the above questions so don't declare it the only show in town. It has to prove itself in many, many ways. Trouble is, in theory it's only got six months to do it.

By the way, love the belly fuel tank for SAR variants, thus reducing the ground clearance even further. Stroke of comic genius that one. It justifies virtually every emoticon in the panel! :ok::D:confused::ugh::rolleyes::hmm::ooh::ouch::O:confused:: )

[jimf671]

So who said they worked for Bristow?

As for your questions, the role equipment is same or equivalent to successful S-92 kit and this is a bigger and more capable AW139 as evidenced by the type rating situation.

What effect will the downwash have? You are kidding surely?

Here's a clue. This is not a Westland Whirlwind.

[tottigol]

The Bristol Belvedere, perhaps?

[Vie sans frontieres]

When the original SARH plan fell apart the coalition government panicked rather than taking stock. Had they done the latter, they would have seen that upgrading the Sea King was a manageable proposition with measures to improve performance, increase safety, prolong life and reduce fatigue either already available or being developed - and AW would have done quite nicely out of that too. In the meantime a slow, thoughtful decision-making process could have started that duly considered whether full privatisation was the most sensible path to take and if so, whether existing aircraft were most appropriate or whether we should wait for new, more suitable aircraft to be developed. As it is, 50% of the chosen solution is with an aircraft that was certified in double quick time and still barely exists - and it's supposed to start in April! That's what happens when decisions are rushed. I think the omnishambles label was being pinned on the government at the time for a number of reasons. This is clearly one.


Of course there are features of these new aircraft that are tremendously beneficial to the crews that fly/will fly them, but, and it's a big but, they're almost exclusively in the cockpit. A long time ago on a previous thread I said that whatever was selected for this project, the cockpit will be awesome and the cabin will be a bag of sh1t. Am I being proved wrong?

[jimf671]

These are details. The 92 and the 189 are good modern aircraft. I did wonder whether some bidders would go for the EC225 for Lot 2 bases.

My real concerns are as follows.
1. The attitude of the Coastguard and their lack of Land SAR skills.
2. The rear-crew recruitment and remuneration situation.
3. The importance of mountain flying.

[jimf671]

Phew. Close one.

Nearly went from AW189 thread to S-61T thread.

[Vie sans frontieres]

P3 Bellows

Which do you think bothers me more? Reading your disparagement of my response to your question (when responses to uncomfortable questions are something of a rarity around here) or watching the slow death of UK Search and Rescue?

[shetlander]

1. The attitude of the Coastguard and their lack of Land SAR skills.


Care to expand further? Re. Attitude of the MCA.

[terminus mos]

These are details. The 92 and the 189 are good modern aircraft. I did wonder whether some bidders would go for the EC225 for Lot 2 bases.

I wouldn't pick the EC225, it's unreliable and requires a lot of maintenance. Some of our 2008 EC225s are requiring a lot of replacement parts during zone inspections. Just when you need it, up comes an MARMS warning. S-92 just keeps going.

[cyclic]

TM - I would like to see your availability ratio. In a mixed fleet I don't see a great deal of difference but it would appear that when the S92 does go tech it goes down for longer. Spares from the USA, big cracks that SK have to repair.

[noooby]

VsF, to quote from you about the 189: "certified in double quick time".

Nothing to do with Agusta I'm afraid. Everyone has to do the same testing and qualifying to certify their helicopter in the respective category.

If no issues are raised with flight testing, then certification can go quite smoothly and quickly. If their are issues (EC175 Helionix system, S76D engine installation) then certification can take much longer.

The only reason certification was quicker with the 189 is that the aircraft was already well tested as the 149 before the 189 came about.

Remember, it might only just be certified, but the 149 has been flying since November 2009!

[jimf671]

Care to expand further? Re. Attitude of the MCA.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/511282-uk-sar-2013-privatisation-new-thread-57.html#post8716144