RAF and RN SAR Sea Kings...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or it could be it needs two pilots because if the computer controlling the throttles breaks you need another "person" up front to operate the manual throttles which are located above the pilots head rather than on the collective like on most helicopters...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 24
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but the aircraft can be flown with one pilot and a manual throttle trained crewman (or women)
The 2 pilot requirement is very much SAR specific as is the level of training and currency required in order to mitigate the very substantial risks they face.
The 2 pilot requirement is very much SAR specific as is the level of training and currency required in order to mitigate the very substantial risks they face.
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
SK4 in the FAA Jungly role is flown as Mike Rosewhich describes.
If you've ever watched any of the reality TV programmes on board the FAA/RAF SKs or the Coastguard S61s it's pretty easy to see that the workload is much better split between a handling pilot and another who can manage the wider plot.
R1a - I was quoting Trim Stab
If you've ever watched any of the reality TV programmes on board the FAA/RAF SKs or the Coastguard S61s it's pretty easy to see that the workload is much better split between a handling pilot and another who can manage the wider plot.
R1a - I was quoting Trim Stab
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it was twin pilot for pinging too, and for exactly the same reason.
Yes, it can easily be flown single pilot plus a manual throttle person in VFR, but at between 200ft and 40ft IMC it is very nice to have a second pair of eyes looking at the radalt, especially when the magic box of transition magic is not the most reliable of simplex clockwork ever invented.
"They are after all painfully slow VFR machines"
I do start to wonder if Trim Stab is actually a grown up.
Seaking used to hold the helicopter speed record, and with Carson fit is not too shabby now.
It is also specifically designed as an all weather, not VFR, helicopter, and does it extremely well.
Incidentally, I would be interested to know what he considers a "more demanding" helicopter that is flown single pilot?
Yes, it can easily be flown single pilot plus a manual throttle person in VFR, but at between 200ft and 40ft IMC it is very nice to have a second pair of eyes looking at the radalt, especially when the magic box of transition magic is not the most reliable of simplex clockwork ever invented.
"They are after all painfully slow VFR machines"
I do start to wonder if Trim Stab is actually a grown up.
Seaking used to hold the helicopter speed record, and with Carson fit is not too shabby now.
It is also specifically designed as an all weather, not VFR, helicopter, and does it extremely well.
Incidentally, I would be interested to know what he considers a "more demanding" helicopter that is flown single pilot?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In The Trap, trapped.....
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are after all painfully slow VFR machines
If you consider 151kts and ILS/VOR/DME/Tacan/ADF fitted as painfully slow and VFR, then I must be a monkey's uncle. Ask New York Centre if the are happy to accept Slow VFR traffic !
Ok, not RAF or RN but still a Sea King.
You could try a bit of research before abusing the Queen of the Skies.
Pas.
ps: Double Manual, Stab Out, Aux Out, Stby AI - give it a try (probably best in the Sim though!)
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
Sycamore on here flew the yellow ones for a while. He also taught me on FW EFT. No prizes for guessing which posting gave him the fewer palpitations
Trim,
You start off by saying.."I don't want to start a willy-waiving constest", but that is almost exactly what you have a track record of doing!
You seem to make a habit of dropping into these military forums, making a less than complimentary comment about military aircrew, and then disappearing when your points are countered by other posters.......
I suggest you spend some time flying with a SAR flight, rather than just watching a TV programme about it, before you can consider yourself qualified to decide how "demanding" their job is!
Exactly which of the Air France crew was ex-military again - you never did answer that one?
By the way, you can't spell contest!
You start off by saying.."I don't want to start a willy-waiving constest", but that is almost exactly what you have a track record of doing!
You seem to make a habit of dropping into these military forums, making a less than complimentary comment about military aircrew, and then disappearing when your points are countered by other posters.......
I suggest you spend some time flying with a SAR flight, rather than just watching a TV programme about it, before you can consider yourself qualified to decide how "demanding" their job is!
Exactly which of the Air France crew was ex-military again - you never did answer that one?
By the way, you can't spell contest!
The other obvious point about having 2 pilots is that sometimes you have to hover left side on to the obstacles/deck etc to get the job done and the LHS pilot sometimes has the best references.
One other difference between Mk 5 and 3/3A is the RN LHS pilots don't have access to the nav kit (CDNU) - this is in the back with the observer whereas the Mk 3/3A have the CDNU (RNAV on 3A) in the cockpit. On the 3A, the RNAV can drive the aircraft around search patterns and nav routes as the SN500 FPC has autopilot modes and a dual channel ASE. Radar waypoints can be sent forward from the Radop to the RNAV saving a lot of time when search planning and allowing a cross-check between co-pilot and Radop when plotting grids and lat/longs.
The SN500 FPC is vastly superior to the Mk 31 FCS and doesn't have any nasty failure modes that try to fly you into the sea; instead, the performance monitors and the duplex ASE do a pretty sterling job along with the extra facilities (rad alt on manouevre below 1000 ft being one of the best).
The RN allegedly pulled out of a plan to put SN500 in all Sea Kings because they knew they were getting the Merlin.
One other difference between Mk 5 and 3/3A is the RN LHS pilots don't have access to the nav kit (CDNU) - this is in the back with the observer whereas the Mk 3/3A have the CDNU (RNAV on 3A) in the cockpit. On the 3A, the RNAV can drive the aircraft around search patterns and nav routes as the SN500 FPC has autopilot modes and a dual channel ASE. Radar waypoints can be sent forward from the Radop to the RNAV saving a lot of time when search planning and allowing a cross-check between co-pilot and Radop when plotting grids and lat/longs.
The SN500 FPC is vastly superior to the Mk 31 FCS and doesn't have any nasty failure modes that try to fly you into the sea; instead, the performance monitors and the duplex ASE do a pretty sterling job along with the extra facilities (rad alt on manouevre below 1000 ft being one of the best).
The RN allegedly pulled out of a plan to put SN500 in all Sea Kings because they knew they were getting the Merlin.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab. The plan was to fit 500s to all RAF SKs.... And I and certain moustachioed officer from the MoD SK desk maneouvred it to be so. We tried to persuade the RN to do likewise... Certainly with the long term SK fleet, and although the SKIPT was initially septical, it became a safety and cost of ownership thing. So it was going to happen. You know as well as I how often the Mk 31 unservceabilities can ground the beast.
It died when the money ran out, and when the investment appraisal post SAR-H concept phase, said it wasn't worth it.
As for that Trim Stab chap..... Must look up in AP3456 where it says there is a direct relationship between speed, and the complexity and demands of operating an aircraft type... Oh but then I remember... There isn't one!!
T-S... Disengenious you maybe, but having had a go flying 53 types (although some for not very long) in my flying career, I can assure you that operating/flying a SK in bad weather, either low level IMC over water or on NVG in a gale in the Highlands (maybe in an unforeseen snow storm), is as good as it gets for producing the adrenalin and demanding the highest professionalism from the crew. Airspeed has norhing to do with it. Having guys like Crab around doesn't help either.. They are so good at failing the stab and pulling speed selects back... Thrills and potential spills a minute when so close
to the almost invisible briney....
It died when the money ran out, and when the investment appraisal post SAR-H concept phase, said it wasn't worth it.
As for that Trim Stab chap..... Must look up in AP3456 where it says there is a direct relationship between speed, and the complexity and demands of operating an aircraft type... Oh but then I remember... There isn't one!!
T-S... Disengenious you maybe, but having had a go flying 53 types (although some for not very long) in my flying career, I can assure you that operating/flying a SK in bad weather, either low level IMC over water or on NVG in a gale in the Highlands (maybe in an unforeseen snow storm), is as good as it gets for producing the adrenalin and demanding the highest professionalism from the crew. Airspeed has norhing to do with it. Having guys like Crab around doesn't help either.. They are so good at failing the stab and pulling speed selects back... Thrills and potential spills a minute when so close
to the almost invisible briney....
dervish
The larger RN radome and scanner, which would have halved the blind arc, was in the original spec approved by MoD(PE). The large scanners for the new Mk3As were sitting in store, brand new, awaiting call forward whenever Westland needed them. Also, the cost of building the 3As with the large radome was slightly less, because it represented the latest build standard.
Mk3 retrofit was also planned, and again the scanners were in place. The cost of changing the radome was about £25k per cab (which would have led to the commonality and efficiency you mentioned).
But the RAF insisted on the more expensive, less capable design.
This extended to the entire radar, because the Mk3A has a hybrid Lightweight Radar / Super Searcher. That is, a mixture of mid-60s and late-80s technology. The RAF spent so much maintaining LWR that the investment appraisal showed a complete Super Searcher fit was more economical. I believe the support costs were in the order of eight times higher. Again, they decided to stick with the expensive, less capable option.
Rationale? Irrational more like.
What was the rationale behind retaining the small scanner in the 3A?
Mk3 retrofit was also planned, and again the scanners were in place. The cost of changing the radome was about £25k per cab (which would have led to the commonality and efficiency you mentioned).
But the RAF insisted on the more expensive, less capable design.
This extended to the entire radar, because the Mk3A has a hybrid Lightweight Radar / Super Searcher. That is, a mixture of mid-60s and late-80s technology. The RAF spent so much maintaining LWR that the investment appraisal showed a complete Super Searcher fit was more economical. I believe the support costs were in the order of eight times higher. Again, they decided to stick with the expensive, less capable option.
Rationale? Irrational more like.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Not quite where I'd like to be
Age: 65
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc
With respect, this doesn't make sense. The only way to halve the blind arc would be to halve, in size, the object blocking the beam (i.e. the Main Rotor GearBox). On the other hand, doubling the size of the antenna (whilst keeping the RF the same) would halve the beam WIDTH, thus improving the azimuth resolution.
I'm off out for a bit to get a life......
The larger RN radome and scanner, which would have halved the blind arc
I'm off out for a bit to get a life......
Tallsar
IPT would have been formed in about 1999. This was early 90s. Mk3A production phase kicked off in early 94 (memory fades) but the proposed spec had been going round the bazaars for a couple of years. At the time, the avionic offices were quite separate from the aircraft office, so the aircraft project manager circulated it to those project offices who would be providing his kit. At the time, he was a very experienced RN officer with an impeccable radar background and knew what the RAF actually needed.
The obvious question, given the RAF's reliance on a support system that had been rundown when the RN got rid of the same radar (fitted to HAS Mk2) was - Why not upgrade? For example, had the Mk3/3A received Sea Searcher, the entire support infrastructure was there, and very little kit would have had to be procured as the RN had a surplus. Similarly, you could go one step further and fit Super Searcher, a development of Sea Searcher, for little extra cost (taking into account the huge savings through not having to support LWR). Bear in mind that the RAF had inherited all the RN's LWR, but despite a pool of 180 radars couldn't keep 19 Mk3s fitted. On one day in 1990, not a single Mk3 had a serviceable radar, with about 110 complete systems sitting at Fleetlands awaiting final test - each one being "No Fault Found". That ratio is ludicrous - 36 should have been enough. The cost was astronomical, making the investment appraisal a no brainer.
The main difference between Mk3 and 3A was the new ACDU (display) and RSPU (processor). Other LRUs, like TxRx and AEC were retained. The scanner looks similar, but I believe the motor/gearbox was upgraded to something like 60rpm. The point I made was it remained small.
Sargs - The RN scanner is much wider and "peeks" round the superstructure in front of it. Someone who knows the detail will correct me, but I think the arcs are about 28 and 14 degrees. Helps with things like Track While Scan, which the RN had specified for HAS, but removed - which caused much head scratching as the radar still had a "TWS" switch, but no wiring behind it. >> scores of 760s "TWS doesn't work". (Again, cheaper to have a better capability!).
Hope I got this right. Old and in the way now.
IPT would have been formed in about 1999. This was early 90s. Mk3A production phase kicked off in early 94 (memory fades) but the proposed spec had been going round the bazaars for a couple of years. At the time, the avionic offices were quite separate from the aircraft office, so the aircraft project manager circulated it to those project offices who would be providing his kit. At the time, he was a very experienced RN officer with an impeccable radar background and knew what the RAF actually needed.
The obvious question, given the RAF's reliance on a support system that had been rundown when the RN got rid of the same radar (fitted to HAS Mk2) was - Why not upgrade? For example, had the Mk3/3A received Sea Searcher, the entire support infrastructure was there, and very little kit would have had to be procured as the RN had a surplus. Similarly, you could go one step further and fit Super Searcher, a development of Sea Searcher, for little extra cost (taking into account the huge savings through not having to support LWR). Bear in mind that the RAF had inherited all the RN's LWR, but despite a pool of 180 radars couldn't keep 19 Mk3s fitted. On one day in 1990, not a single Mk3 had a serviceable radar, with about 110 complete systems sitting at Fleetlands awaiting final test - each one being "No Fault Found". That ratio is ludicrous - 36 should have been enough. The cost was astronomical, making the investment appraisal a no brainer.
The main difference between Mk3 and 3A was the new ACDU (display) and RSPU (processor). Other LRUs, like TxRx and AEC were retained. The scanner looks similar, but I believe the motor/gearbox was upgraded to something like 60rpm. The point I made was it remained small.
Sargs - The RN scanner is much wider and "peeks" round the superstructure in front of it. Someone who knows the detail will correct me, but I think the arcs are about 28 and 14 degrees. Helps with things like Track While Scan, which the RN had specified for HAS, but removed - which caused much head scratching as the radar still had a "TWS" switch, but no wiring behind it. >> scores of 760s "TWS doesn't work". (Again, cheaper to have a better capability!).
Hope I got this right. Old and in the way now.
jamesdevice
The RAF made a separate buy of LWR for Mk3 (around 35 sets).
The LWR Requirement Spec (RRE 5712) did not really address SAR. The requirement was to detect a Wessex, fitted with an enhancement transponder, at 20nm. As the Mk3 was delivered in 77, fitting LWR was perfectly reasonable, but many found it odd the RAF didn't upgrade between 82 and 85 (Mk2 > Mk5 conversion) with the RN, especially as they relied on the RN for all support. Over the years, expectations rose and you'd often get complaints that it couldn't detect something much smaller, on the sea, at 40nm (more akin to the RN spec for Mk5). It was an education for users to discover what the contracted limitations were. MoD(PE) spent a lot of time rejecting MF760s because there was no fault, but a natural limitation of the design. This was one reason PE suggested the upgrade for Mk3A and Mk3 retrofit.
The RAF made a separate buy of LWR for Mk3 (around 35 sets).
The LWR Requirement Spec (RRE 5712) did not really address SAR. The requirement was to detect a Wessex, fitted with an enhancement transponder, at 20nm. As the Mk3 was delivered in 77, fitting LWR was perfectly reasonable, but many found it odd the RAF didn't upgrade between 82 and 85 (Mk2 > Mk5 conversion) with the RN, especially as they relied on the RN for all support. Over the years, expectations rose and you'd often get complaints that it couldn't detect something much smaller, on the sea, at 40nm (more akin to the RN spec for Mk5). It was an education for users to discover what the contracted limitations were. MoD(PE) spent a lot of time rejecting MF760s because there was no fault, but a natural limitation of the design. This was one reason PE suggested the upgrade for Mk3A and Mk3 retrofit.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In The Trap, trapped.....
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why is the RN Lynx single pilot?
Totally different role to that of the SKASW. Like the SKAEW and SKCDO are single pilot because they are flow in a different role environment.
pas.
jamesdevice - but Grey Lynx can't fly with just one in the front. Whoever's in the LHS (Obs or Instructor Pilot) has to operate equipment during take off/landing.