SeaKing Love em or Hate em?
the perception of the RAF amongst those who they are there to support, is that the rules are flexible enough to allow the crews to ditch any jobs that (in a non-operational area) are seen by the RAF to be - awkward, not near a good hotel, involve working late etc etc
your comments on here will do nothing to change these views.
your comments on here will do nothing to change these views.
An apt nom de PPRuNe....
From the Royal Air Force Officers' Manual of the Feudal System and the Repression of Unruly Grunts:
"Those peasants who were freeman would rent the land for an agreed fee. However, the vast majority of the peasants were unfree. These unfree peasants, who were called villeins or serfs, had to provide a whole range of services in exchange for the land that they used. The main requirement of the serf was to supply labour service. This involved working on the demesne without pay for several days a week. As well as free labour, serfs also had to provide the oxen plough-team or any equipment that was needed."
From the Royal Air Force Officers' Manual of the Feudal System and the Repression of Unruly Grunts:
"Those peasants who were freeman would rent the land for an agreed fee. However, the vast majority of the peasants were unfree. These unfree peasants, who were called villeins or serfs, had to provide a whole range of services in exchange for the land that they used. The main requirement of the serf was to supply labour service. This involved working on the demesne without pay for several days a week. As well as free labour, serfs also had to provide the oxen plough-team or any equipment that was needed."
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Dec 2004 at 14:16.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Temporarily unsure of my position
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I thought this thread was about the wonderful Sea King!!
Yet another thread hijacked by RN/RAF petty bickering.
It might be ugly, but for a helo that should be out of service by now, but has recetly been extended for at least another ten years - it can't be too bad can it?
I don't think the Sea King has ever killed any of it's aircrew. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you will find that all Sea King fatalities have been Aircrew/Pilot error, Say that about ANY other aircraft!!
Yet another thread hijacked by RN/RAF petty bickering.
It might be ugly, but for a helo that should be out of service by now, but has recetly been extended for at least another ten years - it can't be too bad can it?
I don't think the Sea King has ever killed any of it's aircrew. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you will find that all Sea King fatalities have been Aircrew/Pilot error, Say that about ANY other aircraft!!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: NEAR TO ISK
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to admit me affection for the Sea King (yellow version) I was on 202 in the early days and was on C Flt at Colt as a groundy when we lost our winchy on the A10 job, (V sad day that and still saddens me to this day)
I also did some time on 1564 at Navy Point, the only thing I hated was those damn winch washes.
SAR cabs will allways be the aviators friend, you just know you are ok when you see one coming over the horizon.
I spent many a day strapped into a dinghy being practise on by our winchies, they even let me have a go one day, I was completely knacked after about 3 goes of wave trawling.
Like someone said, the only replacement for a Sea King is another.
I also did some time on 1564 at Navy Point, the only thing I hated was those damn winch washes.
SAR cabs will allways be the aviators friend, you just know you are ok when you see one coming over the horizon.
I spent many a day strapped into a dinghy being practise on by our winchies, they even let me have a go one day, I was completely knacked after about 3 goes of wave trawling.
Like someone said, the only replacement for a Sea King is another.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I'd like to see the official stats re SK accidents - given the hundreds of thousands of hours flown worldwide, I would be mightily surprised if ALL accidents were attributed to aircrew/pilot error. Never ONCE a technical fault or NOM hazard?
Ugly?? Who cares?
What I did care about, however, and find surprising that it hasn't been commented on, was the extraordinary acceptance of the radar BEHIND the rotor mast. Jolly good idea if you carry out your searches flying backwards but that gearbox 'shadow' hid some nasties over the years. A forward opening door in a helo which hovers markedly tail-down? Hmm? A boat hull that is as waterproof as a colander?
Yes, it does the job, as we did with the Sycamore and the Whirlwind and the Wessex but in those instances,as with the Sea King, in spite of their design, not because of it.
What I did care about, however, and find surprising that it hasn't been commented on, was the extraordinary acceptance of the radar BEHIND the rotor mast. Jolly good idea if you carry out your searches flying backwards but that gearbox 'shadow' hid some nasties over the years. A forward opening door in a helo which hovers markedly tail-down? Hmm? A boat hull that is as waterproof as a colander?
Yes, it does the job, as we did with the Sycamore and the Whirlwind and the Wessex but in those instances,as with the Sea King, in spite of their design, not because of it.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Age: 53
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why in Boz for so long? More to add on that, although perhaps I may paraphrase slightly...........
Abbs, the CO of the squadron and Lordy, boss of HQ CAV as it was then, went to see the big cheese of MND SW in order to ask if we could leave theatre and get someone else to do our job, as we were busy elsewhere and had been there almost 7 years.
Big Boss asked "When my lads are in the sh1t, have casualties in crap weather, at night, half way up the Viterog or in some other God-forsaken area in this country, I count on you to get to them and get them out. So who else can do what you can do, as well as you can do?"
Thinks bubbles from Abbs and Lordy
"No-one that we can think of, Sir."
"Looks like you boys are staying, then!"
And we did for another 3 years and b@gger me, we are still there now!
Beags
I had a huge reply all thought out for you until I read that you sucked back on your initial comments to snafu! But I have pared it down to the important bits (as if anything on this forum is of importance!).
Gung ho is not our way, but have a go, within the rules, is, to support the man in the field. We also know when to get our heads down, and don't see sitting in a crewroom all day watching the tv as an excuse for not getting airborne when needed. As someone else mentioned, the numbers of MK4 prangs have been minimal (touching wood) since one in the Falklands and the one the crab exchange chopped the tail off on Purple Star!
Finally, the grunts who you comically refer to are the reason we have space in the back of the cab and the reason we do what we do - we fly for them, not for ourselves.
PS I love the Sea King - you can keep your bloody big fixed wing fuel to noise converters!
Abbs, the CO of the squadron and Lordy, boss of HQ CAV as it was then, went to see the big cheese of MND SW in order to ask if we could leave theatre and get someone else to do our job, as we were busy elsewhere and had been there almost 7 years.
Big Boss asked "When my lads are in the sh1t, have casualties in crap weather, at night, half way up the Viterog or in some other God-forsaken area in this country, I count on you to get to them and get them out. So who else can do what you can do, as well as you can do?"
Thinks bubbles from Abbs and Lordy
"No-one that we can think of, Sir."
"Looks like you boys are staying, then!"
And we did for another 3 years and b@gger me, we are still there now!
Beags
I had a huge reply all thought out for you until I read that you sucked back on your initial comments to snafu! But I have pared it down to the important bits (as if anything on this forum is of importance!).
Gung ho is not our way, but have a go, within the rules, is, to support the man in the field. We also know when to get our heads down, and don't see sitting in a crewroom all day watching the tv as an excuse for not getting airborne when needed. As someone else mentioned, the numbers of MK4 prangs have been minimal (touching wood) since one in the Falklands and the one the crab exchange chopped the tail off on Purple Star!
Finally, the grunts who you comically refer to are the reason we have space in the back of the cab and the reason we do what we do - we fly for them, not for ourselves.
PS I love the Sea King - you can keep your bloody big fixed wing fuel to noise converters!
Cornish jack.....
"the extraordinary acceptance of the radar BEHIND the rotor mast".
The original radar, "Lightweight Radar" fitted to HAS Mk1 and 2, pre-dates the UK Sea Kings by some years. It is entirely based on an RSRE specification. I'm too young (!) to remember why the 28 degree blind arc was accepted, but when the radar was replaced by Sea Searcher in 1982 (with the Optical sub-system largely retained) part of the spec (again RSRE's) was a requirement to halve the blind arc. Hence the flat top, larger radome in the 5/6 to house the larger scanner. A little known fact is that the outbreak of the Falklands war forced the MoD to shut down development of Sea Searcher one year early and rush it into service. The most obvious effect was that the Track While Scan feature, which would have negated much of the problem you describe, was not completed. There is a switch marked "TWS" but no wiring behind it! FONAC and their successors sought funding to have it completed but there was so much to do in the following years it was not a priority and, I believe, was never implemented. There wasn't even the money to remove the switch and fit a blanking plate and this led to numerous 760s due to "TWS failure" when there was none to fail.
Interestingly, the RAF made a conscious decision to retain the small scanner when the Mk3A was being specified in the early 90s. The RN had such a surplus of Sea Searcher scanners due to good reliability that they offered them to the RAF (along with ready made support facilities), and MoD(PE) complemented this by offering to have the 3As built with the large radome (bearing in mind there was no development cost, and Westlands actually had to go back to old drawings to build what, to them, was an old standard). Politely declined.
Sea Searcher was progressively updated in commercial variants - MAREC, Super MAREC, Super Searcher, Super Searcher Pulse Compression, etc and the RAF Mk3As actually got a hybrid. In addition to the old scanner I think they retained the very low power Tx/Rx, but got a new Super Searcher digital processor and colour display. The RN could not get this as Merlin was due in service. (The 5 year useful life rule - if you can't get 5 years, you don't get the money). By the way, the MoD get commercial exploitation rates on these RSRE designs every time Thales sell one.
The German (Mk43?) has a twin radome system - dorsal and nose - to get round this problem, and if memory serves they fit a Sea Spray Mk1 variant, which only scans 180 degrees (each).
Hope this sheds some light. There's always a reason........
"the extraordinary acceptance of the radar BEHIND the rotor mast".
The original radar, "Lightweight Radar" fitted to HAS Mk1 and 2, pre-dates the UK Sea Kings by some years. It is entirely based on an RSRE specification. I'm too young (!) to remember why the 28 degree blind arc was accepted, but when the radar was replaced by Sea Searcher in 1982 (with the Optical sub-system largely retained) part of the spec (again RSRE's) was a requirement to halve the blind arc. Hence the flat top, larger radome in the 5/6 to house the larger scanner. A little known fact is that the outbreak of the Falklands war forced the MoD to shut down development of Sea Searcher one year early and rush it into service. The most obvious effect was that the Track While Scan feature, which would have negated much of the problem you describe, was not completed. There is a switch marked "TWS" but no wiring behind it! FONAC and their successors sought funding to have it completed but there was so much to do in the following years it was not a priority and, I believe, was never implemented. There wasn't even the money to remove the switch and fit a blanking plate and this led to numerous 760s due to "TWS failure" when there was none to fail.
Interestingly, the RAF made a conscious decision to retain the small scanner when the Mk3A was being specified in the early 90s. The RN had such a surplus of Sea Searcher scanners due to good reliability that they offered them to the RAF (along with ready made support facilities), and MoD(PE) complemented this by offering to have the 3As built with the large radome (bearing in mind there was no development cost, and Westlands actually had to go back to old drawings to build what, to them, was an old standard). Politely declined.
Sea Searcher was progressively updated in commercial variants - MAREC, Super MAREC, Super Searcher, Super Searcher Pulse Compression, etc and the RAF Mk3As actually got a hybrid. In addition to the old scanner I think they retained the very low power Tx/Rx, but got a new Super Searcher digital processor and colour display. The RN could not get this as Merlin was due in service. (The 5 year useful life rule - if you can't get 5 years, you don't get the money). By the way, the MoD get commercial exploitation rates on these RSRE designs every time Thales sell one.
The German (Mk43?) has a twin radome system - dorsal and nose - to get round this problem, and if memory serves they fit a Sea Spray Mk1 variant, which only scans 180 degrees (each).
Hope this sheds some light. There's always a reason........
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: nearby
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that the Junglies are so versatile because they operate as a relatively small, cohesive unit and are not dragged down by the huge, top heavy hierachy that the SH force have to deal with? I have seen both RAF and RN fliers once they leave their beloved Sea King and I can honestly say there is little to no difference in their skills or outlook. This can only mean one thing - the management is largely to blame and having seen both sets of management it shows that apart from the odd exception, the Crabs promote absolute yes-men who then go on to promote the same. This has happened probably since about the early 80's and now look at the state of the organisation with some complete idiots in charge.
BTW I don't work for either!
BTW I don't work for either!
Last edited by freeride; 29th Dec 2004 at 20:44.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least the Erics got me off the mountains when I needed it down south, many thanks to Mr Bristow and his chaps and chapesses on S-61Ns. Also big belated thanks to the Wokkas, Sea Queens and other assorted egg whisks that kept us fed/fuelled and amused be they dark blue, light blue or brown
Normal interservice rivalry will be resumed shortly
Normal interservice rivalry will be resumed shortly
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even speaking as Light Blue, it has to be said that the RAF SH world has a very bad reputation in relation to the Junglies, primarily due to restrictive flying regs. Hopefully, JHC will sort out some common rules. Any SH guys out there care to comment?
Moving away from Jungly/SH dress ripping, let's not forget the bags of 849! Originally procured, developed and delivered in a classic piece of British Heath Robinson inventiveness, the latest ASaC Mk 7 is a useful bit of kit despite the severe limitations of its airframe. And the aircrew are top guys as well!
Regards & happy/safe New Year to all,
M2
Moving away from Jungly/SH dress ripping, let's not forget the bags of 849! Originally procured, developed and delivered in a classic piece of British Heath Robinson inventiveness, the latest ASaC Mk 7 is a useful bit of kit despite the severe limitations of its airframe. And the aircrew are top guys as well!
Regards & happy/safe New Year to all,
M2
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 29th Dec 2004 at 22:00.
As I know someone who flew aboard Sea Kings as an observer in the IN - our navy loves 'em. They've done whatever we've asked them to do and then some.
And i dont care what you call ugly - perhaps you should buy some old Kamov's for yer Navy.... THEN you'll know what FUGLY is
A barn-sized sea king overhead is a darn sight better than the whole lot of em apart from mebbe the Ka-31....
And i dont care what you call ugly - perhaps you should buy some old Kamov's for yer Navy.... THEN you'll know what FUGLY is
A barn-sized sea king overhead is a darn sight better than the whole lot of em apart from mebbe the Ka-31....
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Its the DC-3 of the RW world
Wasn't the Falklands X-deck crash put down to a bird-ingestion?
Having once had the privilege of watching some of the most capable aircraft handling I've ever seen when I was in the Islas Malvinas, it's obvious that old and ugly as it might be, the SeaKing is held in high regard - quite rightly.
We rattled out from Base Aerea Gringo and did some general work before landing on the back of HMS Bouncy Castle on what, to me, seemed like a postage stamp. But the pilot at the controls barely raised an eyebrow as the aircraft vibrated and shook itself like a wet labrador whilst establishing in the hover next to the landing platform. Then a slight right nudge and tweak and we were safely down with barely a bump. In exchange for their mail, the ship drivers gave us something tasty from their gallery for afternoon tea! Then off we went again to do some practice IF for the mate in the other seat which looked very demanding from my FW IRE perspective. After which it was back home again; the novelty of the peat zipping past at not-a-lot of feet was very interesting indeed! Then a quick return over my office roof and a landing outside the hangar; one thing I learned was that the rotors are possibly at their most dangerous whilst running down as various odd vibrations afflicted the beast as it rocked and rolled noticeably until the transmission music had completely stopped! None of this HP cocks to SHUT, belts off and out we get FW stuff!
And the commander of the aircraft was possibly the most petite young lady pilot I've ever met. A great trip - the highlight of that particular 6 weeks down in the Malvinas for me!
We rattled out from Base Aerea Gringo and did some general work before landing on the back of HMS Bouncy Castle on what, to me, seemed like a postage stamp. But the pilot at the controls barely raised an eyebrow as the aircraft vibrated and shook itself like a wet labrador whilst establishing in the hover next to the landing platform. Then a slight right nudge and tweak and we were safely down with barely a bump. In exchange for their mail, the ship drivers gave us something tasty from their gallery for afternoon tea! Then off we went again to do some practice IF for the mate in the other seat which looked very demanding from my FW IRE perspective. After which it was back home again; the novelty of the peat zipping past at not-a-lot of feet was very interesting indeed! Then a quick return over my office roof and a landing outside the hangar; one thing I learned was that the rotors are possibly at their most dangerous whilst running down as various odd vibrations afflicted the beast as it rocked and rolled noticeably until the transmission music had completely stopped! None of this HP cocks to SHUT, belts off and out we get FW stuff!
And the commander of the aircraft was possibly the most petite young lady pilot I've ever met. A great trip - the highlight of that particular 6 weeks down in the Malvinas for me!
Suspicion breeds confidence
AA, 19th May as I recall, sadly 20 SAS killed, 9 survived. Yes, it was put down to bird ingestion. I've heard of SK's swallowing seaguls before and still going, most likely it was overloaded, low and after the bird strike well down on power. An Albatross is another possibility but you can usually see them some way off and they aren't that common.
Quite a few hours (700S + a few Squadrons), but all my backaches went away when I moved away from the King Dipper 
Bl**dy awful drivers seats, don't suppose they've improved any?
And did the P tube A21 ever get results all those years ago.....
Fond memories, I wonder how many of those original HAS1's from 1970 are still around? A few hours on S61N's offshore, too, but Westland and RR must take a bit of credit for the improvement over the Sikorsky product. On Wessex V MTBF we had 115 engine computers budgeted on the SK IFTU, and only used one
Quantum leap from the 90 minute Wessex HAS3 casex times, 4 hours and the chance to get up and stroll around a bit, but the penny pinching on the compass display after such a grand range/bearing display in the Wx3 was a shame. And the rocket scientist who gave us no DC standby instruments needed shooting 
Still a favourite: to look back on
Bl**dy awful drivers seats, don't suppose they've improved any?And did the P tube A21 ever get results all those years ago.....
Fond memories, I wonder how many of those original HAS1's from 1970 are still around? A few hours on S61N's offshore, too, but Westland and RR must take a bit of credit for the improvement over the Sikorsky product. On Wessex V MTBF we had 115 engine computers budgeted on the SK IFTU, and only used one
Quantum leap from the 90 minute Wessex HAS3 casex times, 4 hours and the chance to get up and stroll around a bit, but the penny pinching on the compass display after such a grand range/bearing display in the Wx3 was a shame. And the rocket scientist who gave us no DC standby instruments needed shooting Still a favourite: to look back on
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any roles that are/have been carried out by any other UK Mil helo that the SK hasn't done?? Only one that I can think of is ASM (Skua).
Conversely how many roles (amongst helos) are there that only the SK has done? For starters:
Nuclear deterrent (NDB)
Air Defence Pt 1 (Baggers)
Air Defence Pt 2 (Mk 5 Erica Roes and Zippos)
Conversely how many roles (amongst helos) are there that only the SK has done? For starters:
Nuclear deterrent (NDB)
Air Defence Pt 1 (Baggers)
Air Defence Pt 2 (Mk 5 Erica Roes and Zippos)
