SAR Equipment Question.

[Could be the last?]

Gents,

Trying to put a capability requirement together.

Anyone any ideas on equipment or mechanisms available to deploy from a RW SAR platform (hoist fitted) a rescue device for multiple casualties in a maritime environment, at night?

The platform, at this time, is not allowed to hover over water at night, which discounts using a winchman to deploy a multi-seat raft. Any potential solution will also need to fit the 'day' multiple casualty requirement.

Any pointers or pearls of wisdom will be appreciated.

[extpwron]

You could drop this in at the “hover taxi”.

Not sure if it floats though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/galle...024/tardis.jpg

[kiliwizz]

If you have to keep in motion, what about a firefighting scoop? Would have to deposit them somewhere safely afterwards, of course, but at least you could pick them up whilst in motion.

[Charlie Time]

Is this a rescue device or simply a survival aid? The latter would be met by an air dropped multiseat life raft.

[JTIDS]

Might be missing the point here somewhat but wouldn't it be better to investigate how you can get cleared to hover over the water at night so you can use conventional methods, rather than reinvent the wheel?

[Fareastdriver]

The platform, at this time, is not allowed to hover over water at night

Bit of a waste of money having it. Get something better.

[SirToppamHat]

Slightly off tack, at the end of the Thunderball Movie, James Bond end up in a dinghy and raises a balloon marker, which enables an ac to snag a cable and whisk him up of the sea - was that ever done for real? If so, what was the ac?

Edited to Add

Answered my own question I think.

Fulton Sky Hook System:

[500N]

SirToppamHat

I think MACV SOG may have used it in Vietnam (or adjacent countries like Laos and Cambodia). I'd have to check John Plaster's book.

[[email protected]]

Anyone any ideas on equipment or mechanisms available to deploy from a RW SAR platform (hoist fitted) a rescue device for multiple casualties in a maritime environment, at night?

The platform, at this time, is not allowed to hover over water at night, which discounts using a winchman to deploy a multi-seat raft.

If it can't hover over the water at night it is not a RW SAR platform - pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

The only effective way to rescue casualties from the water is to hover and deploy a winchman and this needs an appropriately equipped aircraft and well trained crew.

Is this yet another pathetic attempt to do SAR on the cheap? if you want people rescued do it properly - do not pretend that anything less will work.

[Tallsar]

Crab is right.... Other than dropping life rafts and other survival packs en-passant, anything else other than with an aircraft equipped with coupled hover capability is fraught with risk. Goodness knows thats why the need for a 4 axis AFCS capability was properly identified so long ago, never mind the other safety aids such as radar to avoid nearby obstructions.
I have horrifying visions of low speed scooping devices attempting to gather bunches of casualties scrabbling to get on board in high sea states...... And in the dark..... Surely not!

Proper and de-risked night SAR cannot be done on the cheap.

[Evalu8ter]

Tallsar, sage words.

Could be - I'm a little concerned that you appear to be reverse-engineering the capability requirement by looking for extant equipment. Unless this is a UOR (and I'm guessing that there's not much scope for this on HERRICK, though conceivably, possibly, ELLAMY) then be careful; much better to consult with your platform RM or Cap desk officer (unless of course you are one...) and assemble a group of SMEs/SQEPs to identify what your requirement actually is before trying to find kit to match it. If I've got the wrong end of the stick then I apologise profusely. Happy for a PM.

[sycamore]

Probably will be the last, if you `search` in the `Nostalgia` threads for `Sproule Net`,all your problems may be answered,..or just starting..!

[xenolith]

Crab

If it can't hover over the water at night it is not a RW SAR platform - pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

Is this yet another pathetic attempt to do SAR on the cheap? if you want people rescued do it properly - do not pretend that anything less will work.

So just to be clear, 84 Sqn should be an SH tour.

[jamesdevice]

could you carry / air drop one of these?

500TD - Products - Griffon Hoverwork

[Tallsar]

Now thats what I call a well equipped aircraft for hovering over the water at night!

As for 84.... Hovering at night over water but with close visual references such as a boat with deck is of course SAR And feasible....but it is still inherently riskier than using a fully coupled transition AFCS to minimise the risk of arriving and leaving the hover.

That said, the original question was believed to insinuate survivors needing rescue in the middle of the ocean with no such references. Those of us who have tried this in the past, and without NVG, know only too well this is not a sensible game. No... The best advice is to get a 4 axis AFCS equipped helo and move on from there...

[[email protected]]

xenolith - 84 Sqn's Griffin is an example of what happens when you let people that don't know anything about SAR procure a helicopter for the role. It is not a SH helo either - presumably you have seen the size of the cabin!

Far better to have had a Sea King det there than in the Falklands - 203 proved it was feasible when they moved the OCU there for a few weeks.

However, given that it is what it is, it is better to have SAR trained boys knowing when to stop than SH boys pushing on and trying to get the job done in impossible conditions.

[leopold bloom]

Damned by faint praise.

Far better to have had a Sea King det there than in the Falklands - 203 proved it was feasible when they moved the OCU there for a few weeks.

A few weeks!! - You're off my Christmas card list.

[Tallsar]

Ouch.....thats just a tad harsh Crab....

Using the SK (and now the S92) for most UK SAR for over 40 years has rather spoilt us all.....and rightly engrained in those of us who have had the priveledge an aspiration that it should always be like that. Sadly, this can not always be the case.

There is nothing fundamentally unsuitable about the Griffin Mk2, although in this day and age its single engine performance is poor, and of course in many circumstances, a bigger cabin always helps.

The harsh reality of the Cyprus requirement was that it had to be delivered to a joint service small budget, wherein full night over water rescue capability was not an essential requirement and other roles had to be accomodated too. We can argue endlessly whether it should be ...but thats what the customer ordered. A compromise has been reached which I have always felt uneasy with.... and in the new financial circumstances the chances of changing that are very remote. Who knows though...someone might come along the next time the contract is up for grabs and deliver something better for the price.. or there again maybe not if the requirment isn't there again! Its a shame too because those of us who have been around long enough, know only too well how over water flying can quickly lead to disaster - SAR flying in Cyprus being no exception... PB RIP!


OH...and its a great shame the MoD didn't insist on the SARH OCU being at Akrotiri... now that would have been a way to sort the problem!

[tramps]

SAR procurement

No actually, Crabs comments were not at all harsh! The diabolical way the Griffin was ‘PROCURED’ and initially brought into service bordered on the criminal.
The then ‘SO1’ & ‘SO2’ were tasked with trying to clear up the mess and had to drop everything else they were juggling at HQ 3Gp to do so; they endured a few long and extremely difficult weeks getting the disaster of a procurement cleared up and then received very little recognition for their sterling efforts.
The Griffin: a nice little ‘sports car’ equivalent for the drivers and a shambles in the back for the rearcrew!! Your comment ‘a bigger cabin always helps’ shows your utter lack of awareness of the issue of trying to get 2x downed A/C ejectees into the back of a Griffin, never mind giving them medical aid!
The Seaking: the pilot 15ft forward of the winch-op, engine exhaust obscuring the winch-ops view, Right sponson obscuring the winch-ops view, engine exhaust pouring into the cabin area causing ‘who-knows-what’ carbon related issues, no forward looking radar, shabby storage area for winching equipment etc etc!
The Seaking Mk3a: read as for Seaking Mk3, but with an updated cockpit.
The Merlin: the pilot 15ft forward of the winch-op, winch fitted on the aft of the cabin door and 3’ out from the cabin (which Einstein allowed that past the design stage?), issues with the ramp etc etc!
It would seem that the voices of those who actually risked their lives over the last 40 years were ignored or were never properly consulted about such issues, whilst those at the top danced to the tune of Wastelands!

[[email protected]]

Tramps - you can be sure that no-one even considered the mechanics of a stretcher entry to the Griffin cabin before deciding it was fit for purpose

Considering it replaced the venerable Wessex and brought nothing extra to the party (and a lot less in terms of cabin space and suitability for SH tasking) it should be considered a case study in how not to procure an aircraft.

The fact that it could have been replaced last year with the 139 and wasn't is a further damnation of contract management and procurement policy with the MoD.