Is it worth keeping military SAR?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the civvy SAR boys fully IFR capable ?
If by fully IFR you mean a form of AFCS, the S-61 uses a system similar to the Sea King Mk3A and much better than the Mk3/5/6 system. The AS332L2 has an even better system which many SAR pilots (including MCA) would love to use as it is so much more flexible.
So the answer is that the civilians can do the stuff the military can do and mostly with better kit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at least the S-61 and the AS332L2 (Jigsaw aircraft) have nose radar
Easy JK - let's keep one thread that doesn't degenerate into name calling (not that it isn't amusing sometimes granted), otherwise it'll end up "shut up" countered by "get lost" style arguments! Or did you design/approve the fitting/pay for the kit?
Since you are obviously in the know - can the 61's radar do transit in narrow channels, eg lochs etc? Can in let down in similar? Could it control another airborne asset if they lost their radar?
Nobody's saying the civ's are any less capable than the military. We're merely looking at the whys/why nots of keeping the light/dark blue choppers doing the job.
SB
Since you are obviously in the know - can the 61's radar do transit in narrow channels, eg lochs etc? Can in let down in similar? Could it control another airborne asset if they lost their radar?
Nobody's saying the civ's are any less capable than the military. We're merely looking at the whys/why nots of keeping the light/dark blue choppers doing the job.
SB
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I just add that I hope Military SAR is kept as I am Off to OASC at the end of March(applying for Wsop), and if I am successful then my long term ambition is to work as a winchman, then to retire into the same job in civvy street.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by junglyAEO
Did your application read something like...
"Dear sir, I'd like to join the armed forces, but only so long as I don't have to do any nasty deployments that take me away from my family, you pay me loads of extra dosh for doing the same job as a civvy, and when I've had enough, I'll take all the training you've given me plus my big fat pension and go and get a job outside, thus preventing anyone else doing what I plan!"
"Dear sir, I'd like to join the armed forces, but only so long as I don't have to do any nasty deployments that take me away from my family, you pay me loads of extra dosh for doing the same job as a civvy, and when I've had enough, I'll take all the training you've given me plus my big fat pension and go and get a job outside, thus preventing anyone else doing what I plan!"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Priest
Are you rising to the bait already? If you can't take a joke you shouldn't join!
JAEO - you're dragging what had been a professional discussion into the mud you naughty boy. Get thee off to Clockwork or somewhere you can literally chill.
All good things etc.
SB
Are you rising to the bait already? If you can't take a joke you shouldn't join!
JAEO - you're dragging what had been a professional discussion into the mud you naughty boy. Get thee off to Clockwork or somewhere you can literally chill.
All good things etc.
SB
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB
I assume by JK you are refering to me. I'm sorry I'm not sure what you mean by name calling. I was answering the questions posed by you and southside and no intention was meant to turn this in to a slanging match.
In answer to your radar question, yes, you can let down in to lochs or other channels, probably with as much care as the venerable Sea King does (but is easier because there is no blind arc). However, neither aircraft has radar that can control other aircraft and from what I remember the only way the Sea King can do that is if the aircraft has an I-band transponder. Civil SAR aircraft do not carry that bit of kit. However, if that was necesary, would there not be a top cover aircraft such as a Nimrod or AWACS anyway? Both of these can read Mode 3 transponders. Howver, I guess the Merlin can do this as well.
I am not involved with approvals of any kit. I have seen the kit working in both types.
To keep to the topic, I question the wisdom of the military losing all their SAR training, but I suspect that the RAF at least wants to go the way of CSAR. It was wanting to go that way many years ago but realised the Sea King wasn't the right type. Still, they have used the Puma and the Chinook successfully. I believe the RN want to lose it on cost cutting grounds, or are they now planning to use the Merlin in the Sea King's place for shorebound bases?
Perhaps the better way would be for the COMR option, but I suspect that if the "civilian" crews are required to wear a uniform and do all the UK station secondary duties (which was certainly muted a few years back), then there won't be that many takers.
I assume by JK you are refering to me. I'm sorry I'm not sure what you mean by name calling. I was answering the questions posed by you and southside and no intention was meant to turn this in to a slanging match.
In answer to your radar question, yes, you can let down in to lochs or other channels, probably with as much care as the venerable Sea King does (but is easier because there is no blind arc). However, neither aircraft has radar that can control other aircraft and from what I remember the only way the Sea King can do that is if the aircraft has an I-band transponder. Civil SAR aircraft do not carry that bit of kit. However, if that was necesary, would there not be a top cover aircraft such as a Nimrod or AWACS anyway? Both of these can read Mode 3 transponders. Howver, I guess the Merlin can do this as well.
I am not involved with approvals of any kit. I have seen the kit working in both types.
To keep to the topic, I question the wisdom of the military losing all their SAR training, but I suspect that the RAF at least wants to go the way of CSAR. It was wanting to go that way many years ago but realised the Sea King wasn't the right type. Still, they have used the Puma and the Chinook successfully. I believe the RN want to lose it on cost cutting grounds, or are they now planning to use the Merlin in the Sea King's place for shorebound bases?
Perhaps the better way would be for the COMR option, but I suspect that if the "civilian" crews are required to wear a uniform and do all the UK station secondary duties (which was certainly muted a few years back), then there won't be that many takers.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, It did not. I am more than willing to do any 'nasty deployments' and I am joining because I wish to serve my country. However I think that I would be well suited to SAR
Hmmmmm..... I think you may be more suited spending some time in a clinic.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK
The dedicated Civil SAR S61Ns have the SN450 digital autopilot, which outperforms the Mk??? AP in the SK 2/3/4/5/6/7. The SK3A has the SN500, which does essentially the same as the 450;probably has a few more megs of processing or something to justify the extra 11.1* %. I believe all except the Mk4 are regulated to allow zero vis approaches to the sea surface, and if you took the gags off the Mk4 AP buttons and gave the crews appropriate trg they could do it too (though clearing the space for descent without a radar would be 'interesting'). So to suggest that one or the other (mk4 excepted) is better in IFR terms is a dodgy argument.
The 322Ls probably have something newer and better.
The Merlin AP has similar capabilities to the 450/500 (with better duplex protection?? - Merlin drivers help me here) except that its autohover / hovertrim is inch-perfect and has the potential to change SAR SOPs a lot if it were to come into service. This may already be happening with the three EH101 variants already in dedicated SAR service worldwide.
Nose mounted radar has some obvious advantages (see where you're going, pilots have the picture directly available).
It also has numerous disadvantages (no north stab / ground stab hence no map overlay, can't see behind you - handy when reversing to the coast in an onshore wind, distracts the NHP from looking for visual references, much smaller coverage for a search).
I would not like to have to give an overall superior rating to one or the other.
Considering the original question.
There is a spectrum of operational experience available in UK SAR which the BH crews are unlikely to run across routinely. All-weather ship ops explore much of that spectrum - hence the RN view that UK SAR is a "respite tour". It is highly desirable that the BH force have a chunk of that experience embedded (you never know what you might be asked to do on deployed ops). Therefore the concept of mil involvement in UK SAR has some merit.
However, to do UK (or anywhere specific) SAR to the highest standard requires local experience and expertise. This is mostly gained by having been there and done that. Civilian crews, who (correct me if I'm wrong) generally treat the job as an absolute end rather than one step in a career progression, may over time gain an advantage in this respect.
So the answer is:
From the military point of view, yes.
From the national point of view, maybe - there are conflicting priorities.
Sven
The dedicated Civil SAR S61Ns have the SN450 digital autopilot, which outperforms the Mk??? AP in the SK 2/3/4/5/6/7. The SK3A has the SN500, which does essentially the same as the 450;probably has a few more megs of processing or something to justify the extra 11.1* %. I believe all except the Mk4 are regulated to allow zero vis approaches to the sea surface, and if you took the gags off the Mk4 AP buttons and gave the crews appropriate trg they could do it too (though clearing the space for descent without a radar would be 'interesting'). So to suggest that one or the other (mk4 excepted) is better in IFR terms is a dodgy argument.
The 322Ls probably have something newer and better.
The Merlin AP has similar capabilities to the 450/500 (with better duplex protection?? - Merlin drivers help me here) except that its autohover / hovertrim is inch-perfect and has the potential to change SAR SOPs a lot if it were to come into service. This may already be happening with the three EH101 variants already in dedicated SAR service worldwide.
Nose mounted radar has some obvious advantages (see where you're going, pilots have the picture directly available).
It also has numerous disadvantages (no north stab / ground stab hence no map overlay, can't see behind you - handy when reversing to the coast in an onshore wind, distracts the NHP from looking for visual references, much smaller coverage for a search).
I would not like to have to give an overall superior rating to one or the other.
Considering the original question.
There is a spectrum of operational experience available in UK SAR which the BH crews are unlikely to run across routinely. All-weather ship ops explore much of that spectrum - hence the RN view that UK SAR is a "respite tour". It is highly desirable that the BH force have a chunk of that experience embedded (you never know what you might be asked to do on deployed ops). Therefore the concept of mil involvement in UK SAR has some merit.
However, to do UK (or anywhere specific) SAR to the highest standard requires local experience and expertise. This is mostly gained by having been there and done that. Civilian crews, who (correct me if I'm wrong) generally treat the job as an absolute end rather than one step in a career progression, may over time gain an advantage in this respect.
So the answer is:
From the military point of view, yes.
From the national point of view, maybe - there are conflicting priorities.
Sven
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: right here, right now
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=JTIDS]JPR and peace time SAR are, sadly, two very seperate occupations which have less in common with each other than most people might think.
I am not convinced that the above statement is true. With a change in our mindset, I believe that our military rescue force could equally achieve both the standard home based SAR and deployed CSAR/JPR roles.
I agree that currently the RAF SAR force appears to be under utilised as a military force - by that I mean war-fighting/supporting. However, many of the SAR crews have served on green helicopters. Indeed, many of the very finest aircrews I have flown with have been ex-SAR and similarly many excellent SH pilots and crewmen have crossed over to the yellow machines.
A JPR mission could entail flight in any weather conditions, in any climate, in any terrain - it could entail a search or recovery of personnel from ships, other stuctures or restricted access sites. Despite the CAMAO trg that was all the rage a few years ago, a recovery mission may be totally unsupported by external assets. In addition to superior flying skills, JPR specifically needs crews with exceptional situational awareness and CRM skills. These are areas in which our SAR crews excel.
My vision would be to replace the SK with the Merlin. The SAR flights would be expanded to 4-6 machines. If that needed a reduction in bases to 3 or 4 more strategically placed units, then so be it. The remaining flights would then have enough crews and machines to deploy as a pair and retain the ability to have an alert crew/aircraft back at home base. Those flights not deployed would have the ability to complete formation, tactical training missions. Admittedly, this plan would require more Merlins than we currently have, but if we are to keep the SAR force, something needs to replace SK. The benefit would be an increased warfighting ability over the current split SH/SAR force while retaining the peacetime SAR capability.
In sum, all aircrews are trained to be military operators and all should share the burden. The SAR force contains some of the most capable and experienced opertaors in the helicopter force. The JPR/SAR mission should be one of the premier and demanding roles within the RAF.
If we "give up" the SAR force, we won't get more SH. We will only lose some very talented individuals. We need to change how we think of rescue and re-focus to get more out of what we have, or hope to have.
Just my 2 pence worth - (and no I'm not a Merlin guy or SARboy)
I am not convinced that the above statement is true. With a change in our mindset, I believe that our military rescue force could equally achieve both the standard home based SAR and deployed CSAR/JPR roles.
I agree that currently the RAF SAR force appears to be under utilised as a military force - by that I mean war-fighting/supporting. However, many of the SAR crews have served on green helicopters. Indeed, many of the very finest aircrews I have flown with have been ex-SAR and similarly many excellent SH pilots and crewmen have crossed over to the yellow machines.
A JPR mission could entail flight in any weather conditions, in any climate, in any terrain - it could entail a search or recovery of personnel from ships, other stuctures or restricted access sites. Despite the CAMAO trg that was all the rage a few years ago, a recovery mission may be totally unsupported by external assets. In addition to superior flying skills, JPR specifically needs crews with exceptional situational awareness and CRM skills. These are areas in which our SAR crews excel.
My vision would be to replace the SK with the Merlin. The SAR flights would be expanded to 4-6 machines. If that needed a reduction in bases to 3 or 4 more strategically placed units, then so be it. The remaining flights would then have enough crews and machines to deploy as a pair and retain the ability to have an alert crew/aircraft back at home base. Those flights not deployed would have the ability to complete formation, tactical training missions. Admittedly, this plan would require more Merlins than we currently have, but if we are to keep the SAR force, something needs to replace SK. The benefit would be an increased warfighting ability over the current split SH/SAR force while retaining the peacetime SAR capability.
In sum, all aircrews are trained to be military operators and all should share the burden. The SAR force contains some of the most capable and experienced opertaors in the helicopter force. The JPR/SAR mission should be one of the premier and demanding roles within the RAF.
If we "give up" the SAR force, we won't get more SH. We will only lose some very talented individuals. We need to change how we think of rescue and re-focus to get more out of what we have, or hope to have.
Just my 2 pence worth - (and no I'm not a Merlin guy or SARboy)
JKnife - let's be clear here - you don't have a better IFR capability, you just have better kit (twin VOR/DME) I suspect instead of the one that we make do with. The better kit doesn't get you to a hold or down an ILS any better or allow you to utilise a lower DH/MDH so where is the better capability.
As for IMC letdowns over water to vessels or coastlines - I can only assume you haven't tried to use the FLIR/TV in these conditions because neither can see in cloud so not having a full radar picture can be a problem - vis trying to turn through 180 when faced with an onshore wind and a coastal letdown into a bay...how do you clear the area you are about to turn into?
Can you couple the AFCS to the nav kit and fly searches in autopilot mode whilst having a the FLIR autoscan for survivors with the ability to detect a head in the water from 1000m @ 500'? That is modern SAR capability.
As for IMC letdowns over water to vessels or coastlines - I can only assume you haven't tried to use the FLIR/TV in these conditions because neither can see in cloud so not having a full radar picture can be a problem - vis trying to turn through 180 when faced with an onshore wind and a coastal letdown into a bay...how do you clear the area you are about to turn into?
Can you couple the AFCS to the nav kit and fly searches in autopilot mode whilst having a the FLIR autoscan for survivors with the ability to detect a head in the water from 1000m @ 500'? That is modern SAR capability.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points in reverse order:-
Crab, calm down its only a commercial!
Jon Jehr, not your vision I'm afraid. That one has been talked about since at least 93/94 - and I agree with you.
Sven, good post well phrased but my answer to you links to my answer to JKnife.
JKnife. The military requirment to train all Support Helicopter crews in secondary role SAR remains extant beyond the decision for SAR(H). Therefore we will need instructors. But that capability will be provided by UK MFTS. UK MFTS will have a mix of mil and civil instructors very similar to the current DHFS set up. My best guess would suggest that some military involvement will remain in SAR - but it may be smaller than we have at the moment. Think of it as the DHFS model turned the other way round - DHFS 60%mil, 40% civ. SAR(H) 60% civ 40% mil?????????? Why not? You get the benefits of COMR, best practice from all 3 services [Civil,RN and RAF] thrown into one melting pot. No more "my Dads bigger than your Dad" discussions. We all bring something to the party lets use the best from each side.
Think on this. Current IPT is at Abbey Wood. It is miltary funded with MCA participation. Let us suppose you make the decision, no more military in SAR. Disband the miltary IPT, give the miltary cash in the EP budget to another project, hand over all work to DTI [or whatever they are called these days] wait 6-years whilst another Government Dept looks at the issues and attempts to get more funding for the entire project.
So, all eyes on the IPT - any signs of suitcases or removal lorries is a better indicator that the Military is out of SAR!
Crab, calm down its only a commercial!
Jon Jehr, not your vision I'm afraid. That one has been talked about since at least 93/94 - and I agree with you.
Sven, good post well phrased but my answer to you links to my answer to JKnife.
JKnife. The military requirment to train all Support Helicopter crews in secondary role SAR remains extant beyond the decision for SAR(H). Therefore we will need instructors. But that capability will be provided by UK MFTS. UK MFTS will have a mix of mil and civil instructors very similar to the current DHFS set up. My best guess would suggest that some military involvement will remain in SAR - but it may be smaller than we have at the moment. Think of it as the DHFS model turned the other way round - DHFS 60%mil, 40% civ. SAR(H) 60% civ 40% mil?????????? Why not? You get the benefits of COMR, best practice from all 3 services [Civil,RN and RAF] thrown into one melting pot. No more "my Dads bigger than your Dad" discussions. We all bring something to the party lets use the best from each side.
Think on this. Current IPT is at Abbey Wood. It is miltary funded with MCA participation. Let us suppose you make the decision, no more military in SAR. Disband the miltary IPT, give the miltary cash in the EP budget to another project, hand over all work to DTI [or whatever they are called these days] wait 6-years whilst another Government Dept looks at the issues and attempts to get more funding for the entire project.
So, all eyes on the IPT - any signs of suitcases or removal lorries is a better indicator that the Military is out of SAR!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab, why do you always have to turn things in to a slanging match only to show your ignorance yet again?! You really do need to get out more. 
While the S61 has twin VHF COM/NAV/ILS as required by civil regulations, it is essentially a pilot driven machine as is the Sea King. However, the Mk2 Super Puma has the capability to fly a fully coupled ILS and holds over beacons, plus many other extemely good features for SAR use which are definitely better than the current S-61/Sea King systems. I've seen it in use and it is good! No doubt the Merlin has, and the S-92 and AW139 will have such niceties as well. For SAR operations the limits are the same as yours where life or limb is involved. Then it is down to the skill of the crews with the kit that they have at their disposal. The only slight advantage the military may have is that you can use helmet mounted NVG. Makes mountain and cliff searches easier, but that doesn't mean that you can always get there while the other aircraft can't. I did many cliff and mountain jobs before NVG came in, the latter just made it slightly easier when the time of the month was right. Still didn't stop us attempting when it wasn't the right time of the month.
I apologise to those for going off topic, briefly to answer Crab.
In answer to Sven Sixtoo, I don't think there are conflicting priorities, there are two. The military has a need for CSAR, the civilian world a need for a day-to-day cover for any vessel or person in trouble. Up to a few years back, the military covered the civil SAR for all UK, but some areas were not covered well. That is why Sumburgh and Stornoway became civilian as they were a long way for Lossiemouth to get there quickly. Then the Navy started cutting back, so Lee-on-Solent and Portland became civil to cover that area's needs.
CSAR and civil SAR differ markedly in the way the work is done. Mind you, it would be fun to see a yellow Sea king pitch up to a job with two yellow painted Apaches for top cover
Perhaps a better way is for the RAF and RN to completely give up civilian SAR and the government to look properly at a fully funded Coastguard (including boats as well as aircraft) that would look after all civil SAR, fishery protection, customs and exercise work such as anti-drug, etc. If the operation was set up properly, it could be a quasi-military operation along the lines of the USCG. Aircraft could be used under the military flying regulations (i.e. military registered) but have the civil requirements as well. It could certainly take a lot of the other work that the military covers for the civil community allowing them to concentrate on what they should be doing, training for war. However, military pilts could be seconded for SAR experience if it was felt necesary by the Lords and Masters.
SARREMF. I like your thinking. However, there are others in both worlds who wont think logically like that, so we still end up with the discussions of who does it better or not.
While the S61 has twin VHF COM/NAV/ILS as required by civil regulations, it is essentially a pilot driven machine as is the Sea King. However, the Mk2 Super Puma has the capability to fly a fully coupled ILS and holds over beacons, plus many other extemely good features for SAR use which are definitely better than the current S-61/Sea King systems. I've seen it in use and it is good! No doubt the Merlin has, and the S-92 and AW139 will have such niceties as well. For SAR operations the limits are the same as yours where life or limb is involved. Then it is down to the skill of the crews with the kit that they have at their disposal. The only slight advantage the military may have is that you can use helmet mounted NVG. Makes mountain and cliff searches easier, but that doesn't mean that you can always get there while the other aircraft can't. I did many cliff and mountain jobs before NVG came in, the latter just made it slightly easier when the time of the month was right. Still didn't stop us attempting when it wasn't the right time of the month.
I apologise to those for going off topic, briefly to answer Crab.
In answer to Sven Sixtoo, I don't think there are conflicting priorities, there are two. The military has a need for CSAR, the civilian world a need for a day-to-day cover for any vessel or person in trouble. Up to a few years back, the military covered the civil SAR for all UK, but some areas were not covered well. That is why Sumburgh and Stornoway became civilian as they were a long way for Lossiemouth to get there quickly. Then the Navy started cutting back, so Lee-on-Solent and Portland became civil to cover that area's needs.
CSAR and civil SAR differ markedly in the way the work is done. Mind you, it would be fun to see a yellow Sea king pitch up to a job with two yellow painted Apaches for top cover
Perhaps a better way is for the RAF and RN to completely give up civilian SAR and the government to look properly at a fully funded Coastguard (including boats as well as aircraft) that would look after all civil SAR, fishery protection, customs and exercise work such as anti-drug, etc. If the operation was set up properly, it could be a quasi-military operation along the lines of the USCG. Aircraft could be used under the military flying regulations (i.e. military registered) but have the civil requirements as well. It could certainly take a lot of the other work that the military covers for the civil community allowing them to concentrate on what they should be doing, training for war. However, military pilts could be seconded for SAR experience if it was felt necesary by the Lords and Masters.
SARREMF. I like your thinking. However, there are others in both worlds who wont think logically like that, so we still end up with the discussions of who does it better or not.
Last edited by JKnife; 25th Feb 2006 at 09:00.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The military should not lose SAR for the simple reason that it maintains a centre of excellence for SAR in the military sphere. This knowledge is then propagated throughout the fleet as people move. Whether or not the civvys can do it better is immaterial, as well as dependant on what you consider better. Cheaper certainly.
And what your IFR fit has to do with it I have no idea. RN SAR Cabs have no DME, no VOR, no ILS, and I never had any cause to want one. If where the casualty is has one of those, you do not need a SAR cab.
And what your IFR fit has to do with it I have no idea. RN SAR Cabs have no DME, no VOR, no ILS, and I never had any cause to want one. If where the casualty is has one of those, you do not need a SAR cab.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to answer Crab's question about coupled FLIR searches, I believe that the MCA aircraft can be coupled up to fly several different types of search patterns whilst using the FLIR/Radar/mk1 eyeball to search for the casualty.
3 pennethworth:
Emergency services to adapt/adopt to SAR would require a massive cash injection direct from the government to give it half a chance of working. It would also take us away from our core business which is onshore! As much as I would like to cover coastal SAR - deep water SAR is a completely different league. All emergency service a/c can/do carry out onshore SAR - it just isn't referred to in that way.
Civvy specialist contractors is the way to go for obvious reasons, should the tide turn! [CHC is the future from what I observe - ooops sorry!].
Be very very aware those 'civvy' operators who operate under the 'devil may care' rule book when there is a perceived threat to life. The rule book most certainly does not go out of the window - especially in these days of burgeoning bureaucratic surpression and more effectively: LITIGATION.
Cast off your regs at your peril.
I would imagine very large civvy companies lobbying the government more and more especially at the demise of the might queen of the skies (S61/Seaking). Makes sense from a government perspective.
Respect to all SAR crew.
Emergency services to adapt/adopt to SAR would require a massive cash injection direct from the government to give it half a chance of working. It would also take us away from our core business which is onshore! As much as I would like to cover coastal SAR - deep water SAR is a completely different league. All emergency service a/c can/do carry out onshore SAR - it just isn't referred to in that way.
Civvy specialist contractors is the way to go for obvious reasons, should the tide turn! [CHC is the future from what I observe - ooops sorry!].
Be very very aware those 'civvy' operators who operate under the 'devil may care' rule book when there is a perceived threat to life. The rule book most certainly does not go out of the window - especially in these days of burgeoning bureaucratic surpression and more effectively: LITIGATION.
Cast off your regs at your peril.
I would imagine very large civvy companies lobbying the government more and more especially at the demise of the might queen of the skies (S61/Seaking). Makes sense from a government perspective.
Respect to all SAR crew.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Realistically, I think COMR may be the best solution the military could expect (apart from the gold plated, keep things as they are result- unlikely). Still raises other questions, especially if the manning is iaw REMFs forecast above, ie 60% civ vs 40% mil. How do you organise the C2 of the unit? We're all big boys but someone's gotta be in charge. Similar story for the crews. DHFS is still a military organsiation, albeit augmented by civilians.
There's also career implications - OJAR chain and so on, if the grown ups are mainly civ, especially the Boss.
JK - I was a pre and post NVG SAR Wallah. I can tell you that it is a miracle I am here today given the capability jump you get with the gog's. True - they most certainly do not turn night into day, but you couldn't seriously consider overland SAR without 'em these days. No doubt NVG are on the planning table for SAR(H) and frankly, as long as a few of the boys are experienced then they can breed that into the ab-initios - it isn't rocket science. That will be the main limit for the MCA cabs until the next generation of machines start flying. It's more of risk for a non-NVG crew to go into them thar' hills than is worth persuing the casualty sometimes.
There's also career implications - OJAR chain and so on, if the grown ups are mainly civ, especially the Boss.
JK - I was a pre and post NVG SAR Wallah. I can tell you that it is a miracle I am here today given the capability jump you get with the gog's. True - they most certainly do not turn night into day, but you couldn't seriously consider overland SAR without 'em these days. No doubt NVG are on the planning table for SAR(H) and frankly, as long as a few of the boys are experienced then they can breed that into the ab-initios - it isn't rocket science. That will be the main limit for the MCA cabs until the next generation of machines start flying. It's more of risk for a non-NVG crew to go into them thar' hills than is worth persuing the casualty sometimes.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
You can certainly do that already in the L2 and it draws the search pattern on the NMD for you so that you can monitor progress. As for autoscan on the flir, I'm sure that is a capability that could be incorporated but bodies in the water don't show up to well on flir as you know.
Can you couple the AFCS to the nav kit and fly searches in autopilot mode
Cyclic and J Knife - I was talking about the S61 v the Sea king not the L2 - as ever when a valid point is made (not exactly showing ignorance just stating facts) the other party moves the goalposts and then (jKnife) starts with the insults again.
Cyclic - my whole point is that with our FLIR, bodies do indeed stand out well in the water -(head in the water detectable from 750m was the required spec, head in the water detected from 1000m is the actual capability, on the aircraft right now along with the autoscan and, on Mk3A, the ability to couple the autopilot to the RNAV)
Cyclic - my whole point is that with our FLIR, bodies do indeed stand out well in the water -(head in the water detectable from 750m was the required spec, head in the water detected from 1000m is the actual capability, on the aircraft right now along with the autoscan and, on Mk3A, the ability to couple the autopilot to the RNAV)