MFTS
Thread Starter
MFTS
With less than a year to run to the start and aircraft rolling off the production line, it appears that the RAF have decided the EC135 is unsuitable for rearcrew training due to it's small cabin and lack of a crashworthy seating arrangement unless you are a PORG. Will be interessant to see what Ascent do about that bombshell!
Then the EC145 destined for SAR trg at Valley has such a long winch bracket that the winchop can't lean far enough out of the cabin to hold the winch wire. How can this sort of stuff keep happening so late on in the process?
Then the EC145 destined for SAR trg at Valley has such a long winch bracket that the winchop can't lean far enough out of the cabin to hold the winch wire. How can this sort of stuff keep happening so late on in the process?
Guest
Posts: n/a
With less than a year to run to the start and aircraft rolling off the production line, it appears that the RAF have decided the EC135 is unsuitable for rearcrew training due to it's small cabin and lack of a crashworthy seating arrangement unless you are a PORG. Will be interessant to see what Ascent do about that bombshell!
Then the EC145 destined for SAR trg at Valley has such a long winch bracket that the winchop can't lean far enough out of the cabin to hold the winch wire. How can this sort of stuff keep happening so late on in the process?
Then the EC145 destined for SAR trg at Valley has such a long winch bracket that the winchop can't lean far enough out of the cabin to hold the winch wire. How can this sort of stuff keep happening so late on in the process?
Oh dear, just as well there is a plan B.........................oh hang on..
It's not like the 412 was particularly spacious, or allowed for much movement in the cabin. Therefore, It would be an interesting read to see where cabin requirements and role equipment were prioritised in the KURs for the replacement ac. More importantly, who signed them off as being fit for purpose - pilot, engineer civil servant?
I expect that suitably qualified and experienced rear-crew were part of the decision process at all stages of the requirements process and subsequent competition................
I expect that suitably qualified and experienced rear-crew were part of the decision process at all stages of the requirements process and subsequent competition................
Some facts that were known about from the beginning with lots of folk hoping that the problems would magically go away or someone would 'hold the risk' as a way of keeping the costs down.
The FW ME side looks dreadful too. WSO training on a laptop down the back, but with a rather limited crew compliment, looks generous when compared to the positively asthmatic single engine performance. Most SIDs will be well out of reach with a engine pulled back and the achievable ground track is horrendous.
The FW ME side looks dreadful too. WSO training on a laptop down the back, but with a rather limited crew compliment, looks generous when compared to the positively asthmatic single engine performance. Most SIDs will be well out of reach with a engine pulled back and the achievable ground track is horrendous.
Seems standing on the skid is the airbus technique!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In the Radio Bay
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is the number of winch op students and instructors gathered on the starboard skid limited by port cyclic authority? Presumably if anything goes wrong there will be an unseemly rush for the (small) door. Elderly Masters first!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's see which DDH is happy to sign off students standing on the skids as a safe way to train.............................
Is there any news about MFTS that doesn't point to a slow-motion train crash?
Is there any news about MFTS that doesn't point to a slow-motion train crash?
Wessex
Probably the 139 since you can winch easily from it, the cabin is fairly roomy (just not very high but same with 212) and it has good single engine capability (at training weights) by all accounts.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Let's see which DDH is happy to sign off students standing on the skids as a safe way to train.............................
Is there any news about MFTS that doesn't point to a slow-motion train crash?
Is there any news about MFTS that doesn't point to a slow-motion train crash?
Granted it's a poxy little door for retrieval (I reckon this photo is actually a BK117, but Airbus credit it to the 145), but the 145 has a markedly bigger access than my BK117 and that is still used around the traps in Oz. The original setup for the winch (from MBB) was on the port side and never too easy for the pilot (Dauphin was the same) but locally a stbd side winch was set up some 15-20 years ago and to keep the lateral CoG in limits, the battery was shifted from the nose bay to beneath the port engine exhaust. The rigid rotor has some fairly tolerant limits anyway.
John - as Baldeep highlights, the training needs to be representative of the front-line task and it isn't. Also what might be acceptable for operational use is not guaranteed to be acceptable for training use.
Remember, you need a trainee and his instructor perched on the skid which doesn't leave much room for the winchman and makes a stretcher entry impossible.
I heard that an Ascent 'expert' was heard to say that stretcher entry wouldn't be a problem because the Air Ambos do it every day - then someone pointed out that they do it shut down on the ground and not in the hover...........Doh!
Oh dear, did the military go for the cheapest bidder??? That always works out fine...........
Remember, you need a trainee and his instructor perched on the skid which doesn't leave much room for the winchman and makes a stretcher entry impossible.
I heard that an Ascent 'expert' was heard to say that stretcher entry wouldn't be a problem because the Air Ambos do it every day - then someone pointed out that they do it shut down on the ground and not in the hover...........Doh!
Oh dear, did the military go for the cheapest bidder??? That always works out fine...........
I am assuming that the Duty Holder chain for DHFS is the Stn CDR, AoC 22gp and CAS. Therefore, as stated previously, the ability to operate the ac 'safely' will be scrutinised extensively, with any significant risks annotated in the platform risk register (or similar document), which is informed by the operators, including CFS. So it would be interesting to see how the risks associated with rear-crew trg and specifically whinch sorties on the new ac are articulated, and at what level those risks are accepted?
As an aside, a few years previous I observed a safety/risk mtg whereby the duty holder chain was not aware that one of the Gp's ac was operated by personnel who spent the majority of the sortie on their knees - the risk being associated with MSI and long-term injuries etc. Now I could almost forgive that due to the FJ background, but within 22 Gp there are enough Snrs with RW experience to not make these type of fundamental mistakes - and have been around long enough to have reviewed the lessons identified when we switched from Wsx to Griffin.
I am also assuming that the Release to Service organisation will have an input to the way in which the ac is cleared for use, or does that go through a different process now?
As an aside, a few years previous I observed a safety/risk mtg whereby the duty holder chain was not aware that one of the Gp's ac was operated by personnel who spent the majority of the sortie on their knees - the risk being associated with MSI and long-term injuries etc. Now I could almost forgive that due to the FJ background, but within 22 Gp there are enough Snrs with RW experience to not make these type of fundamental mistakes - and have been around long enough to have reviewed the lessons identified when we switched from Wsx to Griffin.
I am also assuming that the Release to Service organisation will have an input to the way in which the ac is cleared for use, or does that go through a different process now?
Last edited by Could be the last?; 23rd Apr 2017 at 16:42.
In my opinion - admittedly as a non-helicopter specialist - the gold standard in military helicopter rescue training would presumably be that used by the US Coast Guard.
Largest, single focus task in the world.
Arguably most severe weather conditions.
They use the MH-60T Jayhawk (qty 42) and MH-65 Dolphin (qty 100) - much more expensive pieces of kit ($17M and $9M respectively).
USCG Advanced Helicopter Rescue School: https://www.uscg.mil/d13/sectcolrvr/...scueschool.asp
MH-60T: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg7/cg711/h60s.asp
MH-65C/D/E: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg7/cg711/h65s.asp
Largest, single focus task in the world.
Arguably most severe weather conditions.
They use the MH-60T Jayhawk (qty 42) and MH-65 Dolphin (qty 100) - much more expensive pieces of kit ($17M and $9M respectively).
USCG Advanced Helicopter Rescue School: https://www.uscg.mil/d13/sectcolrvr/...scueschool.asp
MH-60T: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg7/cg711/h60s.asp
MH-65C/D/E: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg7/cg711/h65s.asp
I can't help think that the 'traditional' thinking displayed here doesn't quite fit in with the 'step changes' being put in place by MOD. Especially since the types purchased/proposed are already in use for the designed tasks by other organisations, be they civil or military.
I don't think the RAF/Navy/Army has Seakings or Wessex anymore and neither do MOD have a SAR role anymore. What you seem to be suggesting is that only Chinooks or Merlins in these training roles will do...do you need to update your views?
I don't think the RAF/Navy/Army has Seakings or Wessex anymore and neither do MOD have a SAR role anymore. What you seem to be suggesting is that only Chinooks or Merlins in these training roles will do...do you need to update your views?