SARH
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sure I'm not alone in thinking that crab and tourist should just meet on Bodmin moor having downed several cans of 'wife beater' and go for all out windmilling.
(otherwise, this p!ssing contest between 2 military aviators is quite embarrassing??!?)
(otherwise, this p!ssing contest between 2 military aviators is quite embarrassing??!?)
Well said high spirits. This thread should be seeing an informed debate on a major change to the way the UK conducts SAR Operations. Not a willy waving contest between two aviators who were obviously bullied at school.
Its not often I back up Tourist but...in this case.
The weather conditions in SW Cornwall are subject to many influences due to its position in the Gulf Stream and its general elevation.
In summer months, advection fog can indeed be an issue dependant on the direction of the wind and banks of fog can drift up from the coast over parts of the airfield whilst other areas are clear.
In winter months, Fog is often due to low cloud (warm front) combined with the elevation of the aerodrome, leading to the famed 'gale force fog' phenomena. When this is the case, as Tourist has already mentioned, approaches can be made VFR from Loe Bar or up the Helford River.
Quite often, when a precision approach cannot be completed, Culdrose ATC are able to descend RN helicopters over the sea until they are VFR, quite legally iaw JSP552. the criteria if I recall corerectly are for RN aircraft or aircraft under contract to JSATO, with a units AAIA or Dnager areas, 2 miles clear of the coast for RW or 5 miles for FW, down to 500'amsl. This often allows aircraft to get below a warm front that is causing low visibility over the airfield and navigate VFR to the airfield. The SAR dispersal is slightly lower than the rest of the airfield and it is very much a hop over the fence from the Helford river.
The problem will occur when Civil SAR takes over and the legal application of the JSP 552 rule, which will probably not apply, thereby removing the option of IMC descents over the sea. there is parallel work ongoing however in order to authorise the use of GPS descents to a known point, to enable approaches to aerodromes without ATC services.
Rotary wing operations to Culdrose are rarely interupted. Weather can be a problem for FW, with the higher DH and no VFR option but RW aircraft have many options, including the use of different coast approaches dependant on the prevailing wind. Culdrose is an ideal SAR base as has been demonstrated over many DECADES of use of the aerodrome. Its just not much kop for airshows!
Spelling mistakes are because I cannot be bothered!
The weather conditions in SW Cornwall are subject to many influences due to its position in the Gulf Stream and its general elevation.
In summer months, advection fog can indeed be an issue dependant on the direction of the wind and banks of fog can drift up from the coast over parts of the airfield whilst other areas are clear.
In winter months, Fog is often due to low cloud (warm front) combined with the elevation of the aerodrome, leading to the famed 'gale force fog' phenomena. When this is the case, as Tourist has already mentioned, approaches can be made VFR from Loe Bar or up the Helford River.
Quite often, when a precision approach cannot be completed, Culdrose ATC are able to descend RN helicopters over the sea until they are VFR, quite legally iaw JSP552. the criteria if I recall corerectly are for RN aircraft or aircraft under contract to JSATO, with a units AAIA or Dnager areas, 2 miles clear of the coast for RW or 5 miles for FW, down to 500'amsl. This often allows aircraft to get below a warm front that is causing low visibility over the airfield and navigate VFR to the airfield. The SAR dispersal is slightly lower than the rest of the airfield and it is very much a hop over the fence from the Helford river.
The problem will occur when Civil SAR takes over and the legal application of the JSP 552 rule, which will probably not apply, thereby removing the option of IMC descents over the sea. there is parallel work ongoing however in order to authorise the use of GPS descents to a known point, to enable approaches to aerodromes without ATC services.
Rotary wing operations to Culdrose are rarely interupted. Weather can be a problem for FW, with the higher DH and no VFR option but RW aircraft have many options, including the use of different coast approaches dependant on the prevailing wind. Culdrose is an ideal SAR base as has been demonstrated over many DECADES of use of the aerodrome. Its just not much kop for airshows!
Spelling mistakes are because I cannot be bothered!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 71
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noted in today's North Devon Journal , that lovely Mr. Harvey (
) has said that the new SAR unit replacing the current "A"Flt. at Chivenor might be relocated ,when civilianised, to Exeter or another location in the area . I assume to cover the loss of Portland .
) has said that the new SAR unit replacing the current "A"Flt. at Chivenor might be relocated ,when civilianised, to Exeter or another location in the area . I assume to cover the loss of Portland .
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: sw
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
What exactly is the right terminology for a SAR boy?! I have fond memories of Culdrose but I do not miss the weather - fact. I also have fond memories of sitting at St Mawgan on the dodgems waiting for the weather to clear at CU. My point simply is that the North Coast will be a better place for the SW SAR base. No civil company will want the long screw driver from CU Wings ordering the SAR cab back as the weather was too poor. Which happened at least twice in my time.
It needs to be set up well away from any Naval red tape.
What exactly is the right terminology for a SAR boy?! I have fond memories of Culdrose but I do not miss the weather - fact. I also have fond memories of sitting at St Mawgan on the dodgems waiting for the weather to clear at CU. My point simply is that the North Coast will be a better place for the SW SAR base. No civil company will want the long screw driver from CU Wings ordering the SAR cab back as the weather was too poor. Which happened at least twice in my time.
It needs to be set up well away from any Naval red tape.
TATB,
Sorry but I disagree with your argument. Culdrose has more Instrument runway options, more VFR options, is closer to St Mary's where the fuel is located for those very long range trips into the SouthWest and Treliske is an easy transit up Falmouth Roads
Your points about alledged RN red tape are an irrelevance. Equal rhetoric could be levelled at the RAF and the Army!
Sorry but I disagree with your argument. Culdrose has more Instrument runway options, more VFR options, is closer to St Mary's where the fuel is located for those very long range trips into the SouthWest and Treliske is an easy transit up Falmouth Roads
Your points about alledged RN red tape are an irrelevance. Equal rhetoric could be levelled at the RAF and the Army!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: sw
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok fair enough. But leave weather aside for a moment. Do you really think a civil SAR company will want to be limited to the opening hours for training in the evenings and weekends that are currently enforced at CU? It would be too prescriptive and how would the Duty DCLF be able to authorise a Civy SAR crew to launch long range or in worse than Yellow 2 conditions? (Can't remember distance exactly). It does not happen at other bases (Wattisham - civy ATC, or Chiv - no ATC). I genuinely believe they would be better placed away from CU where they could run their own operations without being hindered. Exeter or Newquay are better suited in my opinion. There is still the option from Newquay to let down south coast and crawl up to Treliske. Hopping to St Mary's will add all of another 10 mins flying and if your refuelling again there anyway it doesn't make any difference.
As with everything there will be a contract in place between the DfT and the MoD which should resolve many of the issues you mention. Wattisham and RM Chivenor BTW operate under the Military Aviation Regulations regardless of what company provides the ATC and RM Chivenor is now part of the naval estate. Yes, it has no ATC but it does have an ILS, which belongs to the MoD not the DfT
Exeter will be too close to Lee on Solent and too far from the IOS and the South West Approaches. Culdrose has all the support facilities needed, plenty of Hangarage (none available at Exeter without significant cost).
You could put a SAR site anywhere you liked to be honest, even St mary's. The issues are flexibility in poor weather, facilities available, including runways, engineering, met, ops, flight planning, communications, navaids, ATC or not and location, location, location.
Culdrose, I am afraid, ticks all of those boxes (intended!).
(Don't live next to Newquay do you and hope for a SAR job without having to commute to Hellstown?)
Exeter will be too close to Lee on Solent and too far from the IOS and the South West Approaches. Culdrose has all the support facilities needed, plenty of Hangarage (none available at Exeter without significant cost).
You could put a SAR site anywhere you liked to be honest, even St mary's. The issues are flexibility in poor weather, facilities available, including runways, engineering, met, ops, flight planning, communications, navaids, ATC or not and location, location, location.
Culdrose, I am afraid, ticks all of those boxes (intended!).
(Don't live next to Newquay do you and hope for a SAR job without having to commute to Hellstown?)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is exactly the smell I get about Mr Ticked.
Taking the time to register on Pprune just to post about SAR basing?
Vested interest I think, and I do not believe he is ex 771, otherwise he would use different words and know that DLCF does not "authorise" anything even now.
Why on earth would DLCF need to get involved in Civvy SAR ops? If the Police helicopter pops in they don't ask his permision to fly based on the weather!
Why do you think that Wings would have any hold over civvy SAR?
Taking the time to register on Pprune just to post about SAR basing?
Vested interest I think, and I do not believe he is ex 771, otherwise he would use different words and know that DLCF does not "authorise" anything even now.
Why on earth would DLCF need to get involved in Civvy SAR ops? If the Police helicopter pops in they don't ask his permision to fly based on the weather!
Why do you think that Wings would have any hold over civvy SAR?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: sw
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist. I have no vested interest in Culdrose remaining or moving elsewhere. I merely thought it time to comment on something I have knowledge of. I do find it amusing that I still seem to use the wrong language for you. I only commented on the weather at CU as I believed, and still do, that the north coast has generally got a higher cloud base and therefore easier to return to from any jobs. I can back that up with my own experience. Im sure I can even dig out the form R and send it you if you need facts of times I have diverted from CU to St Mawgan. In all probability it will remain at CU but there is no harm debating the other options.
The problem will occur when Civil SAR takes over and the legal application of the JSP 552 rule, which will probably not apply, thereby removing the option of IMC descents over the sea.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tamil Nadu
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basing Options
The colour code debate regarding Cu certainly reveals some insecurities amongst those who clearly hope to step across in their little geographic comfort zones to SAR-H. For many reasons Cu future is secure - SAR or not. But ask yourself this - does MoD realy want civ SAR on any of its real estate. Come 2020 when we may wish to sell off or wind up an establishment the prospect of having to deal with a beligerent tenant / squatter is unpalatable, particularly if they have invested in infrastructure. We (MoD) don't know what the future holds and am sure would be only to pleased to see the competitive bidders propose alternative basing options. For that to be really effective though would commit the process to be handled under Lot 3 bids rather than the spectre of 2 companies running Lot 1and 2 separately.
Incoming...????
Incoming...????
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..... Not just location location, but costs costs costs dear boy!..and if it makes the contractor master of it's own universe, then so much the better.
bigtop... Good point you raise but not so well made.
Any of the Lots will allow bidders to consider relocations in the (politically acceptable) vicinity - interesting that Nick Harvey viewed Exeter as " the vicinity" - someone will suggest Brawdy next!
Your point though about 2 winning bidders each operating either Lot 1 or Lot 2 is perhaps one worth focussing on more rather than a rather sterile debate about Culdrose's weather factor. Some fun to be had there methinks!
bigtop... Good point you raise but not so well made.
Any of the Lots will allow bidders to consider relocations in the (politically acceptable) vicinity - interesting that Nick Harvey viewed Exeter as " the vicinity" - someone will suggest Brawdy next!
Your point though about 2 winning bidders each operating either Lot 1 or Lot 2 is perhaps one worth focussing on more rather than a rather sterile debate about Culdrose's weather factor. Some fun to be had there methinks!
So, to summarise - the weather at Culdrose is not great but SAR continues there anyway.
many people are sensitive to the possible loss of SAR from Culdrose - now you know how we felt at Chiv with the last contract looming - the fact is that no-one is safe.
Tourist would fail an IRT or civvy IR because he doesn't understand the concept of a precision approach or missed approach point and thinks that the requirement to go around if you don't have the required visial references at the MAPt is inconvenient.
Call me an old fashioned IRE but your views on instrument approaches are rather worrying especially since you have been defending your actions in returning to CU rather than divert.
many people are sensitive to the possible loss of SAR from Culdrose - now you know how we felt at Chiv with the last contract looming - the fact is that no-one is safe.
Tourist would fail an IRT or civvy IR because he doesn't understand the concept of a precision approach or missed approach point and thinks that the requirement to go around if you don't have the required visial references at the MAPt is inconvenient.
"fudging required visual references is illegal "
Yes it is, but obeying them to the letter is not, in fact it is recommended.
It is rather worrying that you do not understand what both the letter and the meaning of the minima rules are.
Can you honestly tell me that you go around off a precision approach because though you can see the required visual references you feel you are not clear of cloud?
Yes it is, but obeying them to the letter is not, in fact it is recommended.
It is rather worrying that you do not understand what both the letter and the meaning of the minima rules are.
Can you honestly tell me that you go around off a precision approach because though you can see the required visual references you feel you are not clear of cloud?
