Yes, they are fully IFR capable and the S-61 and the Jigsaw aircraft both have much better IFR capability then the military because they have to conform to civil regulations. As for the radar argument, at least the S-61 and the AS332L2 (Jigsaw aircraft) have nose radar, so no clearing the blind arc all the time. As for stories that the radar is only cloud/clunk, the radars have a weather mode but they also have various search modes and safe letdowns can be made to vessels and coastlines quite safely. The fact that the radar only sweeps 60degs either side of the nose isn't a big problem either when you have a 360deg FLIR/TV camera.

If by fully IFR you mean a form of AFCS, the S-61 uses a system similar to the Sea King Mk3A and much better than the Mk3/5/6 system. The AS332L2 has an even better system which many SAR pilots (including MCA) would love to use as it is so much more flexible.

So the answer is that the civilians can do the stuff the military can do and mostly with better kit.

at least the S-61 and the AS332L2 (Jigsaw aircraft) have nose radar
 

Easy JK - let's keep one thread that doesn't degenerate into name calling (not that it isn't amusing sometimes granted), otherwise it'll end up "shut up" countered by "get lost" style arguments! Or did you design/approve the fitting/pay for the kit?

Since you are obviously in the know - can the 61's radar do transit in narrow channels, eg lochs etc? Can in let down in similar? Could it control another airborne asset if they lost their radar?

Nobody's saying the civ's are any less capable than the military. We're merely looking at the whys/why nots of keeping the light/dark blue choppers doing the job.

SB

May I just add that I hope Military SAR is kept as I am Off to OASC at the end of March(applying for Wsop), and if I am successful then my long term ambition is to work as a winchman, then to retire into the same job in civvy street.

No, It did not. I am more than willing to do any 'nasty deployments' and I am joining because I wish to serve my country. However I think that I would be well suited to SAR work and that in the absence of a 'nasty deployment' this would be a worthwhile use of my time and RAF resources. As for getting a job outside, I would be happy to stay employed in the RAF well into my old age however I feel they may not want me! Also I would want to join 'HM' coastguard on my retirement and so would be still be working for 'HM'!

Priest

Are you rising to the bait already? If you can't take a joke you shouldn't join!

JAEO - you're dragging what had been a professional discussion into the mud you naughty boy. Get thee off to Clockwork or somewhere you can literally chill.

All good things etc.

SB

SB
I assume by JK you are refering to me. I'm sorry I'm not sure what you mean by name calling. I was answering the questions posed by you and southside and no intention was meant to turn this in to a slanging match.

In answer to your radar question, yes, you can let down in to lochs or other channels, probably with as much care as the venerable Sea King does (but is easier because there is no blind arc). However, neither aircraft has radar that can control other aircraft and from what I remember the only way the Sea King can do that is if the aircraft has an I-band transponder. Civil SAR aircraft do not carry that bit of kit. However, if that was necesary, would there not be a top cover aircraft such as a Nimrod or AWACS anyway? Both of these can read Mode 3 transponders. Howver, I guess the Merlin can do this as well.

I am not involved with approvals of any kit. I have seen the kit working in both types.

To keep to the topic, I question the wisdom of the military losing all their SAR training, but I suspect that the RAF at least wants to go the way of CSAR. It was wanting to go that way many years ago but realised the Sea King wasn't the right type. Still, they have used the Puma and the Chinook successfully. I believe the RN want to lose it on cost cutting grounds, or are they now planning to use the Merlin in the Sea King's place for shorebound bases?

Perhaps the better way would be for the COMR option, but I suspect that if the "civilian" crews are required to wear a uniform and do all the UK station secondary duties (which was certainly muted a few years back), then there won't be that many takers.

JK - fair points. SK can hold the contact in the "raw" but not always easily, as you say minus the transponder.

I didnt prosume that JK was name calling....it was a genuine question and JK provided a good and honest answer.

So you are prepared to get your boots slightly soiled but if anyone were to even consider shooting at you then you'd be straight off to the P&P people for a tadge of recompense.


Hmmmmm..... I think you may be more suited spending some time in a clinic.

AFAIK
The dedicated Civil SAR S61Ns have the SN450 digital autopilot, which outperforms the Mk??? AP in the SK 2/3/4/5/6/7. The SK3A has the SN500, which does essentially the same as the 450;probably has a few more megs of processing or something to justify the extra 11.1* %. I believe all except the Mk4 are regulated to allow zero vis approaches to the sea surface, and if you took the gags off the Mk4 AP buttons and gave the crews appropriate trg they could do it too (though clearing the space for descent without a radar would be 'interesting'). So to suggest that one or the other (mk4 excepted) is better in IFR terms is a dodgy argument.
The 322Ls probably have something newer and better.
The Merlin AP has similar capabilities to the 450/500 (with better duplex protection?? - Merlin drivers help me here) except that its autohover / hovertrim is inch-perfect and has the potential to change SAR SOPs a lot if it were to come into service. This may already be happening with the three EH101 variants already in dedicated SAR service worldwide.
Nose mounted radar has some obvious advantages (see where you're going, pilots have the picture directly available).
It also has numerous disadvantages (no north stab / ground stab hence no map overlay, can't see behind you - handy when reversing to the coast in an onshore wind, distracts the NHP from looking for visual references, much smaller coverage for a search).
I would not like to have to give an overall superior rating to one or the other.
Considering the original question.
There is a spectrum of operational experience available in UK SAR which the BH crews are unlikely to run across routinely. All-weather ship ops explore much of that spectrum - hence the RN view that UK SAR is a "respite tour". It is highly desirable that the BH force have a chunk of that experience embedded (you never know what you might be asked to do on deployed ops). Therefore the concept of mil involvement in UK SAR has some merit.
However, to do UK (or anywhere specific) SAR to the highest standard requires local experience and expertise. This is mostly gained by having been there and done that. Civilian crews, who (correct me if I'm wrong) generally treat the job as an absolute end rather than one step in a career progression, may over time gain an advantage in this respect.
So the answer is:
From the military point of view, yes.
From the national point of view, maybe - there are conflicting priorities.
Sven

[quote=JTIDS]JPR and peace time SAR are, sadly, two very seperate occupations which have less in common with each other than most people might think.

I am not convinced that the above statement is true. With a change in our mindset, I believe that our military rescue force could equally achieve both the standard home based SAR and deployed CSAR/JPR roles.

I agree that currently the RAF SAR force appears to be under utilised as a military force - by that I mean war-fighting/supporting. However, many of the SAR crews have served on green helicopters. Indeed, many of the very finest aircrews I have flown with have been ex-SAR and similarly many excellent SH pilots and crewmen have crossed over to the yellow machines.

A JPR mission could entail flight in any weather conditions, in any climate, in any terrain - it could entail a search or recovery of personnel from ships, other stuctures or restricted access sites. Despite the CAMAO trg that was all the rage a few years ago, a recovery mission may be totally unsupported by external assets. In addition to superior flying skills, JPR specifically needs crews with exceptional situational awareness and CRM skills. These are areas in which our SAR crews excel.

My vision would be to replace the SK with the Merlin. The SAR flights would be expanded to 4-6 machines. If that needed a reduction in bases to 3 or 4 more strategically placed units, then so be it. The remaining flights would then have enough crews and machines to deploy as a pair and retain the ability to have an alert crew/aircraft back at home base. Those flights not deployed would have the ability to complete formation, tactical training missions. Admittedly, this plan would require more Merlins than we currently have, but if we are to keep the SAR force, something needs to replace SK. The benefit would be an increased warfighting ability over the current split SH/SAR force while retaining the peacetime SAR capability.

In sum, all aircrews are trained to be military operators and all should share the burden. The SAR force contains some of the most capable and experienced opertaors in the helicopter force. The JPR/SAR mission should be one of the premier and demanding roles within the RAF.

If we "give up" the SAR force, we won't get more SH. We will only lose some very talented individuals. We need to change how we think of rescue and re-focus to get more out of what we have, or hope to have.

Just my 2 pence worth - (and no I'm not a Merlin guy or SARboy)

JKnife - let's be clear here - you don't have a better IFR capability, you just have better kit (twin VOR/DME) I suspect instead of the one that we make do with. The better kit doesn't get you to a hold or down an ILS any better or allow you to utilise a lower DH/MDH so where is the better capability.

As for IMC letdowns over water to vessels or coastlines - I can only assume you haven't tried to use the FLIR/TV in these conditions because neither can see in cloud so not having a full radar picture can be a problem - vis trying to turn through 180 when faced with an onshore wind and a coastal letdown into a bay...how do you clear the area you are about to turn into?

Can you couple the AFCS to the nav kit and fly searches in autopilot mode whilst having a the FLIR autoscan for survivors with the ability to detect a head in the water from 1000m @ 500'? That is modern SAR capability.

A couple of points in reverse order:-
Crab, calm down its only a commercial!
Jon Jehr, not your vision I'm afraid. That one has been talked about since at least 93/94 - and I agree with you.
Sven, good post well phrased but my answer to you links to my answer to JKnife.
JKnife. The military requirment to train all Support Helicopter crews in secondary role SAR remains extant beyond the decision for SAR(H). Therefore we will need instructors. But that capability will be provided by UK MFTS. UK MFTS will have a mix of mil and civil instructors very similar to the current DHFS set up. My best guess would suggest that some military involvement will remain in SAR - but it may be smaller than we have at the moment. Think of it as the DHFS model turned the other way round - DHFS 60%mil, 40% civ. SAR(H) 60% civ 40% mil?????????? Why not? You get the benefits of COMR, best practice from all 3 services [Civil,RN and RAF] thrown into one melting pot. No more "my Dads bigger than your Dad" discussions. We all bring something to the party lets use the best from each side.
Think on this. Current IPT is at Abbey Wood. It is miltary funded with MCA participation. Let us suppose you make the decision, no more military in SAR. Disband the miltary IPT, give the miltary cash in the EP budget to another project, hand over all work to DTI [or whatever they are called these days] wait 6-years whilst another Government Dept looks at the issues and attempts to get more funding for the entire project.
So, all eyes on the IPT - any signs of suitcases or removal lorries is a better indicator that the Military is out of SAR!

Crab, why do you always have to turn things in to a slanging match only to show your ignorance yet again?! You really do need to get out more. ;)

While the S61 has twin VHF COM/NAV/ILS as required by civil regulations, it is essentially a pilot driven machine as is the Sea King. However, the Mk2 Super Puma has the capability to fly a fully coupled ILS and holds over beacons, plus many other extemely good features for SAR use which are definitely better than the current S-61/Sea King systems. I've seen it in use and it is good! No doubt the Merlin has, and the S-92 and AW139 will have such niceties as well. For SAR operations the limits are the same as yours where life or limb is involved. Then it is down to the skill of the crews with the kit that they have at their disposal. The only slight advantage the military may have is that you can use helmet mounted NVG. Makes mountain and cliff searches easier, but that doesn't mean that you can always get there while the other aircraft can't. I did many cliff and mountain jobs before NVG came in, the latter just made it slightly easier when the time of the month was right. Still didn't stop us attempting when it wasn't the right time of the month.

I apologise to those for going off topic, briefly to answer Crab.

In answer to Sven Sixtoo, I don't think there are conflicting priorities, there are two. The military has a need for CSAR, the civilian world a need for a day-to-day cover for any vessel or person in trouble. Up to a few years back, the military covered the civil SAR for all UK, but some areas were not covered well. That is why Sumburgh and Stornoway became civilian as they were a long way for Lossiemouth to get there quickly. Then the Navy started cutting back, so Lee-on-Solent and Portland became civil to cover that area's needs.

CSAR and civil SAR differ markedly in the way the work is done. Mind you, it would be fun to see a yellow Sea king pitch up to a job with two yellow painted Apaches for top cover:D

Perhaps a better way is for the RAF and RN to completely give up civilian SAR and the government to look properly at a fully funded Coastguard (including boats as well as aircraft) that would look after all civil SAR, fishery protection, customs and exercise work such as anti-drug, etc. If the operation was set up properly, it could be a quasi-military operation along the lines of the USCG. Aircraft could be used under the military flying regulations (i.e. military registered) but have the civil requirements as well. It could certainly take a lot of the other work that the military covers for the civil community allowing them to concentrate on what they should be doing, training for war. However, military pilts could be seconded for SAR experience if it was felt necesary by the Lords and Masters.

SARREMF. I like your thinking. However, there are others in both worlds who wont think logically like that, so we still end up with the discussions of who does it better or not.

The military should not lose SAR for the simple reason that it maintains a centre of excellence for SAR in the military sphere. This knowledge is then propagated throughout the fleet as people move. Whether or not the civvys can do it better is immaterial, as well as dependant on what you consider better. Cheaper certainly.

And what your IFR fit has to do with it I have no idea. RN SAR Cabs have no DME, no VOR, no ILS, and I never had any cause to want one. If where the casualty is has one of those, you do not need a SAR cab.

Just to answer Crab's question about coupled FLIR searches, I believe that the MCA aircraft can be coupled up to fly several different types of search patterns whilst using the FLIR/Radar/mk1 eyeball to search for the casualty.

3 pennethworth:

Emergency services to adapt/adopt to SAR would require a massive cash injection direct from the government to give it half a chance of working. It would also take us away from our core business which is onshore! As much as I would like to cover coastal SAR - deep water SAR is a completely different league. All emergency service a/c can/do carry out onshore SAR - it just isn't referred to in that way.
Civvy specialist contractors is the way to go for obvious reasons, should the tide turn! [CHC is the future from what I observe - ooops sorry!].

Be very very aware those 'civvy' operators who operate under the 'devil may care' rule book when there is a perceived threat to life. The rule book most certainly does not go out of the window - especially in these days of burgeoning bureaucratic surpression and more effectively: LITIGATION.
Cast off your regs at your peril.

I would imagine very large civvy companies lobbying the government more and more especially at the demise of the might queen of the skies (S61/Seaking). Makes sense from a government perspective.

Respect to all SAR crew.

Realistically, I think COMR may be the best solution the military could expect (apart from the gold plated, keep things as they are result- unlikely). Still raises other questions, especially if the manning is iaw REMFs forecast above, ie 60% civ vs 40% mil. How do you organise the C2 of the unit? We're all big boys but someone's gotta be in charge. Similar story for the crews. DHFS is still a military organsiation, albeit augmented by civilians.

There's also career implications - OJAR chain and so on, if the grown ups are mainly civ, especially the Boss.

JK - I was a pre and post NVG SAR Wallah. I can tell you that it is a miracle I am here today given the capability jump you get with the gog's. True - they most certainly do not turn night into day, but you couldn't seriously consider overland SAR without 'em these days. No doubt NVG are on the planning table for SAR(H) and frankly, as long as a few of the boys are experienced then they can breed that into the ab-initios - it isn't rocket science. That will be the main limit for the MCA cabs until the next generation of machines start flying. It's more of risk for a non-NVG crew to go into them thar' hills than is worth persuing the casualty sometimes.

Crab

You can certainly do that already in the L2 and it draws the search pattern on the NMD for you so that you can monitor progress. As for autoscan on the flir, I'm sure that is a capability that could be incorporated but bodies in the water don't show up to well on flir as you know.

Cyclic and J Knife - I was talking about the S61 v the Sea king not the L2 - as ever when a valid point is made (not exactly showing ignorance just stating facts) the other party moves the goalposts and then (jKnife) starts with the insults again.

Cyclic - my whole point is that with our FLIR, bodies do indeed stand out well in the water -(head in the water detectable from 750m was the required spec, head in the water detected from 1000m is the actual capability, on the aircraft right now along with the autoscan and, on Mk3A, the ability to couple the autopilot to the RNAV)

Crab,

Like I said before, you can couple up the autopilot to fly search patterns in the 61.

Why do you come across as being so crabby about your civvy SAR colleagues? It seems that at some stage in your past either Bristows or the MCA have really disjointed your nose.

Droopystop - if I come across as crabby, it is not because I have any beef with the civvy SAR crews at all. The SAR related threads have all tried to compare the capability and cost of military SAR (especially RAF) with that of the existing Bristows S61 at the 4 MCA flights in UK.
In order to back up their opinions on how cheap civvy SAR is, various posters have claimed that the capability of mil and civvy is the same (this is not knocking the skills and commitmment of the MCA crews at all). The capability of the S61 with its equipment fit does not match the RAF Sea Kings in all areas and the crews get a third of the training hours - these facts are conveniently forgotten when the mud slinging starts.

Crab is right here. But I go back to a previous point. To what level can the bar be lowered to and still give Joe public et al an acceptable service?

FLIR is a fantastic search device (and the RN still haven't got it!) but check the stats, it's nice to have but not essential, compared to how many jobs need NVG (handy for recording those PR moments though!). Give me the latest gen gog's instead, CAPSAT, decent trauma kit. There's lots of stuff that sits above FLIR in real-world utility.

scottishbeefer - you are right that it is not essential but there are already people who have been rescued who we probably wouldn't have found had it not been for the FLIR - it is absolutely awesome overland and if my child was missing, this is the piece of kit I would want people using to find him.

What is the level of service you can accept compared to the level you want. We live in a society where competition is supposed to drive up standards and drive down prices but we all know that the truth is you get what you pay for and if the cost is low it is because some corners have been cut.

I have to grudgingly admit SB that your boys played well on Saturday.

Crab:
Fair enough, however, you didn't make that clear in your answer and the original question was about "civvy SAR", hence the replies. Remember, as well as the Bristow/MCA contracts using the S-61, Bond Offshore have now started with their AS332L2s. Although contracted by an oil company, I fully expect they will be used where needed for non-oil related SAR work if they are the nearest asset.

With regard to FLIR, excellent kit and a great asset for searches. However, if the air is moist the capability of the kit reduces. Heat source against rocks should be OK, but looking for a body in the water becomes more difficult and sometimes impossible.

It'd be great to have everything on board, however...

Was talking to a man in the know a couple of months ago who reminded me that the (Mil) requirement is for a helicopter with a winch - period. Anything else is a (sensible) bonus, so all our EIEC trained crewies etc really hang by a budgetary thread. My answer to him was that there's not much point sending the expensive chopper if you merely bring back a body instead of a casualty. His reponse was they should count themselves lucky they get anything.

Merits in both arguments!

I am still not quite sure what you are getting at here. There are differences to each because they are different types. The S61 has nose radar but not 360 degs. The Sea King doesn't truly have 360 either because of the blind arc (that's why the Norwegian Air Force stuck nose radar on their cabs). S-61s have had FLIR/TV for many years but the RAF has only just got them. S-61s have twin hoists (one electric and one hydraulic), the Sea King has one plus the heave-ho hoist as an emergency back up. The Sea King crews have helmet mounted NVG and NVG compatible cockpits, which is better than the S-61, although the crewmen can use hand held units in the latter. Whether the CAA and MCA will see fit to have NVG cockpits in the S-92 and AW139, I don't know, but let's hope so. Avionics and radio fits are similar with both having VHF/FM and HF, I assume the Sea King must have GPS now that Decca has gone (one or two?). Engine performance is better in the Sea King than in the S-61. Both aircraft have an AFCS system and the S-61's is more flexible than the Sea King 3 and similar to the 3A. Both aircraft have AHT (or AMC as it is known in the S-61). The S-61s winch is behind the pilot, not half way down the fuselage and therefore makes the cabin more spacious. As for medical kit, I would say that both aircraft have similar levels.

While the RAF may get more training hours, I suspect they have a bigger turnover of crews. I do not know what the present manning levels are on a military SAR flight these days, but they were bigger than MCA units. Perhaps another reason for more training hours (more people to keep current).
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I seem to remember that training hours per pilot (apologies to the crewmen here) for the RAF was 10 hours, two hours of which was IF and GH, so 8 hours for SAR training. That is a similar level to MCA units (about an hour difference max probably) given that they have less personnel. Civil units don't have dedicated hours for GH and IF, and IF flying is either part of the low level IF when doing FPC work, or approaches are carried out on return from SAR training sorties. Saying that the MCA units have 6-monthly base checks for aircraft and IF, plus annual winch competency and FPC (AFCS) checks. It doesn't matter what standard you are, you do the same checks at the same intervals, unlike the Cat system in the RAF.

Having lots of hours to train is great, but you also have the possiblilty of over-training where it becomes tedious and boring. That can be as dangerous as not having enough training.

There isn't any mud slinging here, just trying to make sure that there is a balanced argument. Unfortunately, those who have not had the benefit of seeing both sides of the equation tend to only see one side. I remember that view from my time in the military where there were all sorts of stories going around about civilian SAR. I have now seen how biased and unfounded they were. IMHO the civilian crews for CIVILIAN SAR are as good as the military, despite the incorrectly perceived lack of training. However, if you were to bring CSAR in to the argument, then the military have that laid down good and proper, where it should be.

SAR and CSAR have nothing to do with each other, except utilise some of the same letters.
There are no Red and grey or yellow helicopters involved.

That blind arc is really not a significant problem. Just makes for a few more clearing turns running in to the target - need a decent Nav/Obs!

The mil (especially RN) probably overtrain on the IF side of life - no bad thing for handling but it's a legacy from bluewater ASW days when we spent long-tedious hours getting in/out of the dip. Things are changing here, and the directives will be become more relevant.

Agree that overtraining with no focus leads to complacency & boredom. Those hours don't always have to utilised though.

What %age of the MCA SAR crews (Captains especially) are pure-bred civvies, vs ex-mil? What is their background?

SB

Not sure of the exact figures, but I would say that probably still more ex-mil than civil (just). That is changing rapidly, though. There are several new SAR commanders within the MCA with no military experience and they are very good.

JKnife,

Shame on you! How dare you inject reason, logic, and facts into this pig wrestle? How can that be productive?

Yes, it's easy to get self absorbed in the relatively small and parochial military world, for sure.

Good to know the standard outwith us mil types is good or better (I know a fair few of 'em - they were mainly solid mil types anyway). There's plenty of barely average mil pilots driving rescue choppers as well, so we can't throw too many stones else we shatter the panes!

Have we all agreed that we agree?! The mil/civ relationship is complementary as it stands. The mil like what they've got and don't want to lose it, the civ's would like some more well paid jobs? Both sides of the fence do their respective role well.

Why would you want to mess with that????????????????????

Now, now - where's that Jungly sense of humour!

It'll be awhile but you'll get your Merlins idc. Once the crabs have discarded theirs. Then you'll have a pukka chopper.

A debate on taxpayers' value for money/military necessity could spawn a thread as long as your list of anti-SAR gripes old chap!

But seriously, as has been said before, if it's going to come down to nothing more than a metric test of value for money, then it's probably time to hang up our spurs isn't it? I think there's a balance to be struck between mil SAR/COMR/MCA and still leave a couple of quid to let the SH mates buy some toys.

Restructure fine, but a bit narrow minded to up-board yet I think.

Is anybody really naive enough to believe for even one second that the MOD will be allowed to keep any of the money saved by civilianising SAR! If it does go civi it will only be to cut the MOD budget by the amount that mil SAR cost, spend some of the saving on the civi replacement and spend the spare on the new 11 plus or some other :mad: new labour scheme