CL604 Cobham SAR jobs
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: WA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost no crew going to Cobham from Aerorescue. The AR crew are experienced with the old Surveillance Australia hands now having 10 years of SAR experience plus whatever they had before with Coastwatch. Cobham have only offered jobs to the in-experienced short timers, this way they can stamp their "culture"on to malleable people. So down the back you have low experience aviators, we are talking 100 hrs or so. Up the front you will have Airline Capts who have never flown low level and FOs who have never flown jets. Put this together with an annual flight experience predominantly accumulated in the sim , plus the lack of drop capability, low visibility out of the windows and a far too high search speed, and you have a dud. AMSA are the true culprits here, their ignorance has allowed them to get steamrollered by the big aviation bully.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Darmah,
I think there is an element of truth in what you say, has AMSA ever actually found anyone in distress?.
To me it all sounds like the "National Safety Council" revisited, only this time with the snout firmly stuck in the public trough.
I think there is an element of truth in what you say, has AMSA ever actually found anyone in distress?.
To me it all sounds like the "National Safety Council" revisited, only this time with the snout firmly stuck in the public trough.
So down the back you have low experience aviators, we are talking 100 hrs or so. Up the front you will have Airline Capts who have never flown low level
You must personally know each and every person offered a job to make a statement like that?? Or is it that you missed out on a job and are bitter?
I personally know of multiple people who have vast experience operating at low level (RAAF AP-3C/ CL604 pilots plus a few P3 back enders) who have been offered jobs. I'm not saying that there are not some who fit your bill but there are also some people who have relevant and current experience.
As for no drop capability, I'm pretty sure they are modifying the aircraft so it can drop.... Otherwise why have a "dropmaster" position onboard?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: WA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the real world, drop capability means dispatching life rafts or dewatering pumps. An array of heavy and large equipment is necessary to address the various tasks that may occur.
The perfect method of doing this is with a ramp equipped aircraft. If that is not available then you require the biggest aperture from a cargo door that is operable in flight.
The current droppable equipment is designed to drop at 140 kts ideally less.
The 604 can drop small items, say the size of a jerry can, far short of a liferaft or 60kg pump. But with the drag counts increasing the speed is now at 170 kts+ to drop. The higher the speed the less accurate the splash point. While this is going on you have a jet engine intake a few feet away from the flapping ropes and a myriad of other items in the drop zone. One mistake and you may snuff an engine out at low level.
And yes AMSA and AR have saved many lives over the last decade.
The perfect method of doing this is with a ramp equipped aircraft. If that is not available then you require the biggest aperture from a cargo door that is operable in flight.
The current droppable equipment is designed to drop at 140 kts ideally less.
The 604 can drop small items, say the size of a jerry can, far short of a liferaft or 60kg pump. But with the drag counts increasing the speed is now at 170 kts+ to drop. The higher the speed the less accurate the splash point. While this is going on you have a jet engine intake a few feet away from the flapping ropes and a myriad of other items in the drop zone. One mistake and you may snuff an engine out at low level.
And yes AMSA and AR have saved many lives over the last decade.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: WA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect to the people taking on this challenging role. A bizjet pilot will take some time to get used to pole ing an aircraft at 500 ft or lower, ideally you will drop at 100 It's not what we generally do with any kind of jet. Real world training sooner or later will be critical for flight safety, sim has its place but ultimately actual hands on is required.
I know 2 guys who are experienced on corporate jets who have taken the gig...
I guess I understand the value of a roster and the low contact hours, but I'm still a bit surprised.
Last edited by josephfeatherweight; 15th Feb 2016 at 10:16.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: In a house
Age: 50
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick question, is the CL604 able to sit on the hardstand with enough fuel to fulfill the required range as per the contract spec, while being able to meet a 30 minute response time? As to zero chance of anything going into an intake, that comment reeks of someone who has not done dropping for SAR operations. There are many things that could and do go forward of the door after deployment. Best just to reduce the risk, as I'm sure Cobham are doing.
Originally Posted by Excia
Quick question, is the CL604 able to sit on the hardstand with enough fuel to fulfill the required range as per the contract spec, while being able to meet a 30 minute response time?
Despatch height and speed from Dornier 328
The load as shown is despatched at 130 KIAS, generally into wind, 200 feet above the highest point of the vessel.
It did not take 10 years to get it right. There were successful drops from the outset of operations.
All crew members are required to carry out operational or practice drops at periods not exceeding 90 days.
It did not take 10 years to get it right. There were successful drops from the outset of operations.
All crew members are required to carry out operational or practice drops at periods not exceeding 90 days.
Last edited by Cilba; 19th Feb 2016 at 05:24.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: In a house
Age: 50
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Bloggs
I can appreciate the logistics required to get a 30 minute response, not that difficult. My point was can the CL 604 be left with full fuel on the hard stand to meet the endurance required for the contract? Another interesting point would be is the cargo door able to deploy the large diesel pump. The tender documents were very specific with respect to items needing to be deployed and all bidders needed to fulfil that in order to proceed. Again though I have no idea as to the size of the door in the 604, just what the tender requirements were for drop equipment deployment.
There is a lot more to this than has and probably will ever be published.
Darmah is on the money, regarding platforms in the end there were two similar types and the criteria for selection was blured.
Big issues were as follows:
Ability to depart max fuel and then have the tasking cancelled...... how long before you can land due max landing weight??? There is a 10000lb difference in the 604 between MTOW & MLW. Does this mean the requirement for max fuel each time means that each launch will have a potential 5hr sortie before you can land????
1E DP max range return. Yep this was a doozie the numbers crunched to make this work was a challenge. Lets say you are already out at 1200nm+ from the nearest landing point and you find your target. You get low and slow drop the toys and just as you do that at 100ft @ 130Kts you suck in Percy the Pelican into #1.......
But that's not really the problem, the problem comes in when the drop master calls up and says he cant close the door.
OK 1E return, not a problem, slow climb back to altitude, yep you will be a bit slower but the altitude will help with the fuel burn.
DP return, no problem get up to FL110, both engines and you have the speed.
1E DP..... there is the limiting factor, the return is slow, the fuel burn is high and that was the performance challenge.
I don't know what the actual numbers from the 604 were but product B could do 1200nm+
The next criteria was the amount of crap required to be carried. Ask anyone at the current operator what happened to the doorknob. More and more stuff went in to the point where it bulked out.
The 604 will be tight to begin with, Product B offered the ability to carry the 5 crew, plus the laundry list of toys to throw out the door..... +5 more pax, ie an entire relief crew.
All of this was meant to be done in a $27M p/a budget...... Yet the winner made a non conforming bid at $53M p/a, and one of the used the same aircraft.
Will joe public get a platform that is better than what exists?..... yes it will. Will the taxpayer get value for money? you make up your own mind.
Darmah is on the money, regarding platforms in the end there were two similar types and the criteria for selection was blured.
Big issues were as follows:
Ability to depart max fuel and then have the tasking cancelled...... how long before you can land due max landing weight??? There is a 10000lb difference in the 604 between MTOW & MLW. Does this mean the requirement for max fuel each time means that each launch will have a potential 5hr sortie before you can land????
1E DP max range return. Yep this was a doozie the numbers crunched to make this work was a challenge. Lets say you are already out at 1200nm+ from the nearest landing point and you find your target. You get low and slow drop the toys and just as you do that at 100ft @ 130Kts you suck in Percy the Pelican into #1.......
But that's not really the problem, the problem comes in when the drop master calls up and says he cant close the door.
OK 1E return, not a problem, slow climb back to altitude, yep you will be a bit slower but the altitude will help with the fuel burn.
DP return, no problem get up to FL110, both engines and you have the speed.
1E DP..... there is the limiting factor, the return is slow, the fuel burn is high and that was the performance challenge.
I don't know what the actual numbers from the 604 were but product B could do 1200nm+
The next criteria was the amount of crap required to be carried. Ask anyone at the current operator what happened to the doorknob. More and more stuff went in to the point where it bulked out.
The 604 will be tight to begin with, Product B offered the ability to carry the 5 crew, plus the laundry list of toys to throw out the door..... +5 more pax, ie an entire relief crew.
All of this was meant to be done in a $27M p/a budget...... Yet the winner made a non conforming bid at $53M p/a, and one of the used the same aircraft.
Will joe public get a platform that is better than what exists?..... yes it will. Will the taxpayer get value for money? you make up your own mind.
Originally Posted by TWOTBAGS
Ability to depart max fuel and then have the tasking cancelled...... how long before you can land due max landing weight??? There is a 10000lb difference in the 604 between MTOW & MLW. Does this mean the requirement for max fuel each time means that each launch will have a potential 5hr sortie before you can land????
The only time you're burning 2000lbs an hour is when you're sitting up at FL400!
