SAR privatisation
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A puzzle
Don't worry, I am sure those clever people at the IPT, with their years of experience in SAR, will pick the right "solution". BTW is Crab on leave or is his computer broken?
NH90, as I understand it, is not certified for civillian use and I would think it extremely unlikely that any of the consortia would be able to use it. Just a guess, but delivery times may be too long as well. Would be even more surprised if S61s were being offered - way too old and being phased out of a lot of commercial operations.
I don't know much about the 145, but I would agree. I believe there is a bigger Eurocopter in the offing, but I imagine that the AW139 is a more logical choice as it is in production and has already been chosen for the MCA interim contract.
Given the lead in time of around 3 years from contract award, I can't see why you would need a legacy ac in the form of the S61 to stopgap. Yes, the NH90 could go on the mil register, but it is still not clear/announced whether the ac are going to be civvy or mil reg. You will have to wait another 18 months or so for that to decision....
Before Xmas, I asked "Two vaguely SAR-H related questions."
The first was answered brilliantly.
The second remains. On the off-chance that some of our missing chums are now back, I'll re-state it.
2) Six SAR-H bidders went to four, and then to three.
We know that Bond/AgustaWestland dropped out to leave:
Airknight team (Lockheed Martin/VT/British International Helicopters)
CHC/Thales
UK Air Rescue (Bristow/SERCO/FB Heliservices)
Were Glintek & Evergreen bidders 5 and 6?
3) Which bid team is offering which helicopter combination?
a) S-92 and AW139
b) AW101 and AW139
c) EC225 and AW139
What were Westland/Bond offering?
Are there more types being offered, as Leo Bloom suggested? What are they?
The first was answered brilliantly.
The second remains. On the off-chance that some of our missing chums are now back, I'll re-state it.
2) Six SAR-H bidders went to four, and then to three.
We know that Bond/AgustaWestland dropped out to leave:
Airknight team (Lockheed Martin/VT/British International Helicopters)
CHC/Thales
UK Air Rescue (Bristow/SERCO/FB Heliservices)
Were Glintek & Evergreen bidders 5 and 6?
3) Which bid team is offering which helicopter combination?
a) S-92 and AW139
b) AW101 and AW139
c) EC225 and AW139
What were Westland/Bond offering?
Are there more types being offered, as Leo Bloom suggested? What are they?
There will be those who know what is going to be offered, but I doubt you will get anyone to state on here what their bid is going to be. Of course this is a rumour forum, so you will get plenty of conjecture...
Apache for HEMS - Strafe those Survivors!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
given that chc are operating S92 and AB139 for MCA, I would guess their bid will be that, commonality and experience of the types. Bristows have a couple of 225s at Abz, and lots of experience operating the L2 in the North Sea environment (and G-Jsar was theirs) so I think they might bid with that as part of their combination. Lockhead are involved with providing the 101 for the US presidential helo so I think they may be offering that, especially given that chc and bristow do not already operate the type.
139 should be a good choice for a shorter range aircraft, the USCG did a study of their rescue stats a couple of years ago and came out with a figure of 3 as the average number of people rescued in a single event. Yes we could have an arguement about what capability you should aim for, but if you accept that a mix of 2 types carries some benefits, and finances are not infinite, then a highly capable, smaller, shorter range aircraft is probably appropriate for some locations. The key is to get the basing mix of long and short range types right. A lot of work was done on this in the past using historical data on rescues, so it should not be beyond the wit of man.
As to the longer range type, the S92 and 225 would possibly be better in the overland role, the 101 is a big beast and while very nice to fly, I am led to believe that like many rigid/semi-rigid heads, it is a hard ride in turbulence. The L2 seems to be doing an effective job for Bond on Jigsaw, so I see no reason for the 225 not to work, also S92 is now online for MCA, so CHC should have a good feel for how that is working now.
My major concern about the 101, and perhaps one of our Canadian cousins could shed some light, is position of the hoist, the door is a LONG way back, the aircraft hovers very nose up, which increases in stronger winds because of the nature of the moveable staiblizer (so I am told), I know this caused some issues when the canadians first took them on, especially as westland mounted the hoist at the rear of the door (allegedly for structural reasons, despite being told by various prospective customers that this was not the best location). Put a very heavy helo with intense downwash over a small boat in a rough sea with the hoist a long way behind the pilot and the front end are not going to see the target at all, (equals no hover references and a high hover). The AHT had better be good, along with the winch ops!
Personally I think a combination of either S92 or 225 with AB139 probably offers the best mix, allowing a sensible mix of range and payload for both longer and shorter range types. Don't know if this helps any of Jacko's questions, but there you go.
I have been out of the SAR world for a few years now, but I greatly enjoyed my time there. I just hope that whatever is chosen works out well for those who will end up operating it, enjoy
139 should be a good choice for a shorter range aircraft, the USCG did a study of their rescue stats a couple of years ago and came out with a figure of 3 as the average number of people rescued in a single event. Yes we could have an arguement about what capability you should aim for, but if you accept that a mix of 2 types carries some benefits, and finances are not infinite, then a highly capable, smaller, shorter range aircraft is probably appropriate for some locations. The key is to get the basing mix of long and short range types right. A lot of work was done on this in the past using historical data on rescues, so it should not be beyond the wit of man.
As to the longer range type, the S92 and 225 would possibly be better in the overland role, the 101 is a big beast and while very nice to fly, I am led to believe that like many rigid/semi-rigid heads, it is a hard ride in turbulence. The L2 seems to be doing an effective job for Bond on Jigsaw, so I see no reason for the 225 not to work, also S92 is now online for MCA, so CHC should have a good feel for how that is working now.
My major concern about the 101, and perhaps one of our Canadian cousins could shed some light, is position of the hoist, the door is a LONG way back, the aircraft hovers very nose up, which increases in stronger winds because of the nature of the moveable staiblizer (so I am told), I know this caused some issues when the canadians first took them on, especially as westland mounted the hoist at the rear of the door (allegedly for structural reasons, despite being told by various prospective customers that this was not the best location). Put a very heavy helo with intense downwash over a small boat in a rough sea with the hoist a long way behind the pilot and the front end are not going to see the target at all, (equals no hover references and a high hover). The AHT had better be good, along with the winch ops!
Personally I think a combination of either S92 or 225 with AB139 probably offers the best mix, allowing a sensible mix of range and payload for both longer and shorter range types. Don't know if this helps any of Jacko's questions, but there you go.
I have been out of the SAR world for a few years now, but I greatly enjoyed my time there. I just hope that whatever is chosen works out well for those who will end up operating it, enjoy
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
101
Winching from the 101 is not a problem, there were some minor issues initially but they were solved - the downwash is a major consideration, but, as when the Sea King replaced the Whirlwind, you learn to cater for it. The AHT is a excellent, flew it in Canada and it was without doubt the best I had ever used, I don't know for sure but I was told that it ran off an IN platform rather than Doppler. Anyone out there know for sure?
I don't think we will get any reliable info on the aircraft mix until the IPT have seen the offerings first.
Haven't any info on the Glintek Evergreen questions but I would have thought that AW/Bond would offer the 101/139 combo?
I don't think we will get any reliable info on the aircraft mix until the IPT have seen the offerings first.
Haven't any info on the Glintek Evergreen questions but I would have thought that AW/Bond would offer the 101/139 combo?
Last edited by leopold bloom; 6th Jan 2008 at 18:28.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the downwash is a major consideration, but, as when the Sea King replaced the Whirlwind, you learn to cater for it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Banana Republic
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I am a dinosaur, but prefer full time military SAR crews and machines to civilian contractors. What happens when another conflict errupts - send in the civilian contractors and their machines? Whats going to happen to the military SAR skill set over the years, it will be lost. While we are on it lets get civilians to fly combat missions in the fast movers - privatise the whole lot, we will save lots of money.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stay awake at the back
Richard you haven't been paying attention:
a.Your preferences don't count - it's all about money.
b. SARBOYS (and girls) don't do wars.
c. 66 military personnel will be involved in SARH.
d. Care to make a bid for fast jet combat missions?
a.Your preferences don't count - it's all about money.
b. SARBOYS (and girls) don't do wars.
c. 66 military personnel will be involved in SARH.
d. Care to make a bid for fast jet combat missions?
All is not well, it seems as the UK led contender withdraws:
£2bn search-and-rescue sell-off plan under threat after UK-led contender withdraws its bid | Mail Online
£2bn search-and-rescue sell-off plan under threat after UK-led contender withdraws its bid | Mail Online
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of the North
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have been a slow news day, this was announced a month ago:
UK Air Rescue Team quits SAR-H Contest - Flight
UK Air Rescue Team quits SAR-H Contest - Flight
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a long running thread on Rotorheads - SAR-H to go???? - which has included this old fact in its deliberations as well as other matters - well worth a view for those interested I would suggest. (Maybe even HRH will take a view too given he will be part of the UK SAR Team soon!).
Cheers
Cheers
UK led contender?
With AW being owned by Finmeccanica and Bristow’s part of Olog (Houston), I sense a touch of spin and sniping on behalf of the outgoing consortia via the Mail on Sunday.
That said I think their proven helicopter and SAR experience made them a worthy candidate for this bid, so a shame to see them go - for whatever reason.
With AW being owned by Finmeccanica and Bristow’s part of Olog (Houston), I sense a touch of spin and sniping on behalf of the outgoing consortia via the Mail on Sunday.
That said I think their proven helicopter and SAR experience made them a worthy candidate for this bid, so a shame to see them go - for whatever reason.