SAR: Search & Rescue Ops
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Nick, I have just looked back to pages 1 and 2 and they don't seem to include many Bristow gripes......perhaps it is wishful thinking on your part!
As HC has gone on holiday why don't we stop the EC V Sikorsky war and get back to the issues. There are not many people who would not agree that the S92 does have better potential than the S61 for SAR. As the EC 225 was not involved in the bid lets leave it out of the discussion for now.
However, the AB 139 is unproven for SAR and lacks the range and capacity of the S61 (and S92). Does it have a SAR autopilot, FLIR system and hoist yet? If not when when it arrive and how many pounds of KY will they have to carry to squish in the survivors?
RI
As HC has gone on holiday why don't we stop the EC V Sikorsky war and get back to the issues. There are not many people who would not agree that the S92 does have better potential than the S61 for SAR. As the EC 225 was not involved in the bid lets leave it out of the discussion for now.
However, the AB 139 is unproven for SAR and lacks the range and capacity of the S61 (and S92). Does it have a SAR autopilot, FLIR system and hoist yet? If not when when it arrive and how many pounds of KY will they have to carry to squish in the survivors?
RI
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Originally Posted by Upland Goose
ShyTorque
I'm with you on Rainex - by the way, could you bring another bottle in to work?
UG
I'm with you on Rainex - by the way, could you bring another bottle in to work?
UG
Join Date: May 2005
Location: holland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
This week in Flight International:
Manufacturers scramble as Taiwan opens contest
Taiwan has launched a long-anticipated competition for nine firefighting and three large search and rescue (SAR) helicopters.
Industry sources say National Airborne Services (NASC) issued a request for proposals in early December, and a follow-up request for proposals is expected early this year after NASC is allocated a budget for 2006.
AgustaWestland, Eurocopter, Sikorsky are preparing to offer the EH101, EC225 and S-92, respectively, for NASC’s SAR requirement, which also includes maritime patrol with a minimum range of 650km (350nm).
About $75 million has been set aside for the three-aircraft acquisition, which is expected to be spread out over three to five years.
Russia’s Kamov and Kazan Helicopters are expected to compete for the firefighting requirement, offering the Ka-32 and Mi-172, respectively. Sikorsky is considering offering used S-70 Black Hawks because new S-70A Fire Hawks are too expensive for the roughly $12 million per aircraft budget.
But sources say NASC may revise the programme after receiving initial proposals and open the competition in the second round to more expensive aircraft. Eurocopter is now unable to offer its AS332L2 Super Puma as a firefighting helicopter as it is too expensive for the current budget.
Sikorsky could be in a strong position to win the SAR competition following the Taiwanese air force’s tentative selection of the S-92 to augment its fleet of S-70 SAR helicopters (Flight International, 22-28 November 2005).
Sources say that Euro*copter, which initially did not enter the air force competition, is now trying to convince Taipei to consider the EC225 for both the air force and NASC requirements. But the sources say a rejection of the air force selection, which is still contingent on government approval and funds being allocated, is unlikely. Eurocopter last month beat Sikorsky, offering the S-92, in SAR competitions in mainland China and Japan
.
No need to argue on PPRUNE which beast is more suitable for SAR. Others have already decided! S92 - EC225: 0-2
Oh, and I think Japan has got a fair amount of icing conditions at the moment.
Manufacturers scramble as Taiwan opens contest
Taiwan has launched a long-anticipated competition for nine firefighting and three large search and rescue (SAR) helicopters.
Industry sources say National Airborne Services (NASC) issued a request for proposals in early December, and a follow-up request for proposals is expected early this year after NASC is allocated a budget for 2006.
AgustaWestland, Eurocopter, Sikorsky are preparing to offer the EH101, EC225 and S-92, respectively, for NASC’s SAR requirement, which also includes maritime patrol with a minimum range of 650km (350nm).
About $75 million has been set aside for the three-aircraft acquisition, which is expected to be spread out over three to five years.
Russia’s Kamov and Kazan Helicopters are expected to compete for the firefighting requirement, offering the Ka-32 and Mi-172, respectively. Sikorsky is considering offering used S-70 Black Hawks because new S-70A Fire Hawks are too expensive for the roughly $12 million per aircraft budget.
But sources say NASC may revise the programme after receiving initial proposals and open the competition in the second round to more expensive aircraft. Eurocopter is now unable to offer its AS332L2 Super Puma as a firefighting helicopter as it is too expensive for the current budget.
Sikorsky could be in a strong position to win the SAR competition following the Taiwanese air force’s tentative selection of the S-92 to augment its fleet of S-70 SAR helicopters (Flight International, 22-28 November 2005).
Sources say that Euro*copter, which initially did not enter the air force competition, is now trying to convince Taipei to consider the EC225 for both the air force and NASC requirements. But the sources say a rejection of the air force selection, which is still contingent on government approval and funds being allocated, is unlikely. Eurocopter last month beat Sikorsky, offering the S-92, in SAR competitions in mainland China and Japan
.No need to argue on PPRUNE which beast is more suitable for SAR. Others have already decided! S92 - EC225: 0-2
Oh, and I think Japan has got a fair amount of icing conditions at the moment.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 56
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
All differences aside, we operate all three here, and ALL do very very well.
Suprisingly, alot of pax still like the old 61 though.
Suprisingly, alot of pax still like the old 61 though.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up here, but not for long
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Originally Posted by I fly 92`s
With 2 pilots and seastate 5 floats the S92 weight is 17800 lbs, max gross is 26150 lbs, full fuel 5100 lbs, payload 3350 lbs.
Am I missing something here?
Wiz
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
I had heard that a certain South West UK Operator was having trouble getting the payloads promised from its new AB139 and that a contract it had in Norway for it was currently being covered by an S61!!!
Now that's irony for you!!!
Now that's irony for you!!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Come on somebody, is the Ab 139 really that bad?
Won't someone stick up for it, where is an Italian Nick Lappos?
Have the MCA made a bad choice with the 139?
RI
Won't someone stick up for it, where is an Italian Nick Lappos?
Have the MCA made a bad choice with the 139?
RI
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Night watchman,
I think you have your facts muddled; the139 is not operated by the South West UK company. The South West UK company is using its 61 to fill in on the contract that will be done by a Norwegian company with its 139!
I think you have your facts muddled; the139 is not operated by the South West UK company. The South West UK company is using its 61 to fill in on the contract that will be done by a Norwegian company with its 139!
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
212man is always correct!
Seems the AB139 op in Norway is showing up the true capability of the 139. From rumours I hear, the 139 has a huge distance to go if it is going to be a capable, reliable and flexible SAR machine. We all know that the S92 will do the biz (OK a few bits and bobs to sort but no show-stoppers) - it is the 139 element of the CHC SAR bid that is worthy of some in-depth PPUNE work!
Seems the AB139 op in Norway is showing up the true capability of the 139. From rumours I hear, the 139 has a huge distance to go if it is going to be a capable, reliable and flexible SAR machine. We all know that the S92 will do the biz (OK a few bits and bobs to sort but no show-stoppers) - it is the 139 element of the CHC SAR bid that is worthy of some in-depth PPUNE work!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
I have a copy of Rick Burt's article on the introduction of the S-92, which seems fair and does take the gloves off a bit, while also pointing out some good stuff. Rick has always been a straight shooter! It is 1 meg pdf, and is posted here:
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/rickarticle.pdf
It really would be great to get some word on the AB-139 intro!
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/rickarticle.pdf
It really would be great to get some word on the AB-139 intro!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Hi all. Ive been an avid fan of this site for a while but had to reply to the cries for info on the AB139. So here goes the first post:
The AB139 I feel will be a very capable aircraft for SAR.
It has a high cruise speed. Cruise limited to Vne of 167Kts because of a plexiglass windscreen which is due to be changed.
The cabin is adequtely large(upto 15 Pax in commuter config) with a very big sliding cabin door.
Rear stowage for SAR equipment is good. Stowage is provided in tail with internal and external accesability.
Single engine hover is very good. SE HIGE @ MTOW
Payload is adequate but due to be expanded to 6400Kg
From a pilots perspective the systems are excellent and the handling also excellent.
Concerns would be as follows:
SAR systems are now only being developed for 6 UAE SAR machines.
The aircraft is designed as a coporate aircraft and I feel is a bit plastic with potential to break with one ill placed boot.
The maintenance TBOs are very very low. Agusta will give contracted TBOs at the projected level of future TBOs but the aircraft badly needs to get some serious hours flown on it to see how this pans out.
No pressure refuel. Seems odd for the wet and windy nights.
Finally in my opinion the biggest problem may be the Italians very laid back attitude to getting things done. With Bell involved I would have felt more secure about time frames and deadlines. Now im not so sure.
It must be remembered though that this machine is about to start earning its money in the North Sea and has 18 months before going on SAR.
Personnally Id like to give it a whirl in the SAR arena and see how it performs.
The AB139 I feel will be a very capable aircraft for SAR.
It has a high cruise speed. Cruise limited to Vne of 167Kts because of a plexiglass windscreen which is due to be changed.
The cabin is adequtely large(upto 15 Pax in commuter config) with a very big sliding cabin door.
Rear stowage for SAR equipment is good. Stowage is provided in tail with internal and external accesability.
Single engine hover is very good. SE HIGE @ MTOW
Payload is adequate but due to be expanded to 6400Kg
From a pilots perspective the systems are excellent and the handling also excellent.
Concerns would be as follows:
SAR systems are now only being developed for 6 UAE SAR machines.
The aircraft is designed as a coporate aircraft and I feel is a bit plastic with potential to break with one ill placed boot.
The maintenance TBOs are very very low. Agusta will give contracted TBOs at the projected level of future TBOs but the aircraft badly needs to get some serious hours flown on it to see how this pans out.
No pressure refuel. Seems odd for the wet and windy nights.
Finally in my opinion the biggest problem may be the Italians very laid back attitude to getting things done. With Bell involved I would have felt more secure about time frames and deadlines. Now im not so sure.
It must be remembered though that this machine is about to start earning its money in the North Sea and has 18 months before going on SAR.
Personnally Id like to give it a whirl in the SAR arena and see how it performs.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Sousa T
If you have ever seen the 15 pax configuration in the 139, you would realise that only dwarfs or contortionists would manage to get in to it. 12 configuration is ok but more "economy" than "first class" though.
In SAR configuration it will obviously be different. My main concern at the moment is lack of a simulator and no HUMS available until 2008. That, in my view, is a bit of an oversight on the part of BA or AB. I would love to see some empirical fuel flow vs speed/range data from the offshore operators to see what it can really do.
I don't know how much of a difference using the 139 vs the 61 will be but most of the SAR in the south is shorter range and smaller numbers, generally speaking. Bell 212s were used in the NS for SAR for quite a few years and I don't remember cabin size being a huge issue. The speed and new technology will hopefully be an advantage over the 61. I haven't flown it so I can't comment on its stability in the hover.....perhaps someone who has can sare their experience with us all.
If you have ever seen the 15 pax configuration in the 139, you would realise that only dwarfs or contortionists would manage to get in to it. 12 configuration is ok but more "economy" than "first class" though.
In SAR configuration it will obviously be different. My main concern at the moment is lack of a simulator and no HUMS available until 2008. That, in my view, is a bit of an oversight on the part of BA or AB. I would love to see some empirical fuel flow vs speed/range data from the offshore operators to see what it can really do.
I don't know how much of a difference using the 139 vs the 61 will be but most of the SAR in the south is shorter range and smaller numbers, generally speaking. Bell 212s were used in the NS for SAR for quite a few years and I don't remember cabin size being a huge issue. The speed and new technology will hopefully be an advantage over the 61. I haven't flown it so I can't comment on its stability in the hover.....perhaps someone who has can sare their experience with us all.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Hippolite,
I know what you mean about the 15 seat config. It does however illustrate the large cabin (for ac size) and more importantly the square cabin which leaves more headroom for rear crew.
As for the hover it is very stable, even on one engine at MTOW in 24 degrees. The transition to the hover however is quite nose up leaving forward viz a bit scant. The machine I flew however had fixed seats and I believe adjustable seats are now available but probably not standard.
Consider also that 90% of SAR is spent training. At present with the 61 there are severe limits on what can be accomplished on calm or hot days and remain safe. Safe single engine hover in a machine such as the 139 will be guaranteed as long as it is out of the hangar.
One point I would also make about the 92 is the distance between the pilots seating position and the side of the cockpit. I think it may be a little too far and cause problems with references in the overhead. Nick, maybe you could tell me the distance from the righthand side of the pilots seat to the right window on the 92 and the 61. It might well be the same and just the CB box in the 61 makes it look smaller.
With regards to the completely different choice of aircraft for the different bases I would assume that the customer has different requirements at each. Does anybody know the tender requirements?
I know what you mean about the 15 seat config. It does however illustrate the large cabin (for ac size) and more importantly the square cabin which leaves more headroom for rear crew.
As for the hover it is very stable, even on one engine at MTOW in 24 degrees. The transition to the hover however is quite nose up leaving forward viz a bit scant. The machine I flew however had fixed seats and I believe adjustable seats are now available but probably not standard.
Consider also that 90% of SAR is spent training. At present with the 61 there are severe limits on what can be accomplished on calm or hot days and remain safe. Safe single engine hover in a machine such as the 139 will be guaranteed as long as it is out of the hangar.
One point I would also make about the 92 is the distance between the pilots seating position and the side of the cockpit. I think it may be a little too far and cause problems with references in the overhead. Nick, maybe you could tell me the distance from the righthand side of the pilots seat to the right window on the 92 and the 61. It might well be the same and just the CB box in the 61 makes it look smaller.
With regards to the completely different choice of aircraft for the different bases I would assume that the customer has different requirements at each. Does anybody know the tender requirements?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
From the rumours I have heard the payload and range is poor, especially as the fuel burn is very high - about the same as a S61 from what I have heard. Also when will we see a simulator, HUMS and a SAR autopilot?
If you add hoists, SAR kit, extra crew and FLIR, how far will it really go? It doesn't matter if it has lots of power if it won't get beyond the Isle of Wight!
RI
If you add hoists, SAR kit, extra crew and FLIR, how far will it really go? It doesn't matter if it has lots of power if it won't get beyond the Isle of Wight!
RI
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
The cells are filled via gravity refuelling or as
a customer option a Closed Circuit refuelling receiver CCRR may be
accommodated.
a customer option a Closed Circuit refuelling receiver CCRR may be
accommodated.
Originally Posted by Sousa Teuszii
No pressure refuel. Seems odd for the wet and windy nights.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Running In,
Firstly, do we know if the GC want to go beyond the Isle of Wight. What is their requirement on the south coast?
Secondly, the Agusta website gives a useful load of 2778Kg in the standard aircraft(this is up to MTOW of 6400kg).
The following weights should be in the ballpark:
Hoist: 70Kg
FLIR: 50Kg
SAR Kit Allowance: 200Kg
4* SAR crew at 100Kg each: 400kg
odds and sods allowance: 100kg
This still leaves a payload of 1958KG.
As the Max fuel with Aux tank is 2062L or 1608 Kg the aircraft can take off fully equipped with full fuel at approx 6050 kg. I need to check but I believe the fuel burn at MTOW SL is about 400 kgs / hr. Assume 30 mins reserve and 30 mins on scene that leaves 1.5 hrs each way at approx 160 Kts. I know this is overly simiplfied but thats a range of 250 Nm with b**lls to the wall not to mention Vbr. That doesnt seem to bad to me! Even if the fuel burn is 500kg/hr (which I doubt as a Blachawk burns about 550/600Kg/Hr) thats still about 185nm radius of action!
The Sim is due to be operational in Milan Malpensa (sorry if thats spelt wrong) by years end. As for the HUMS I do not know. As already said the SAR avionics are under development for UAE. When they will arrive Im afraid I dont know.
Aser,
It is my understanding that the CCRR is just a fitting to allow gravity refuelling in afore mentioned conditions and is not pressure refuelling. The catch however is the the bowser must have the same CCRR attachment. It may be possible to fit a pressure refuelling hose to the CCRR and limit the pressure of the fuel uplift but I dont know if bowsers have that capability.
ST
Firstly, do we know if the GC want to go beyond the Isle of Wight. What is their requirement on the south coast?
Secondly, the Agusta website gives a useful load of 2778Kg in the standard aircraft(this is up to MTOW of 6400kg).
The following weights should be in the ballpark:
Hoist: 70Kg
FLIR: 50Kg
SAR Kit Allowance: 200Kg
4* SAR crew at 100Kg each: 400kg
odds and sods allowance: 100kg
This still leaves a payload of 1958KG.
As the Max fuel with Aux tank is 2062L or 1608 Kg the aircraft can take off fully equipped with full fuel at approx 6050 kg. I need to check but I believe the fuel burn at MTOW SL is about 400 kgs / hr. Assume 30 mins reserve and 30 mins on scene that leaves 1.5 hrs each way at approx 160 Kts. I know this is overly simiplfied but thats a range of 250 Nm with b**lls to the wall not to mention Vbr. That doesnt seem to bad to me! Even if the fuel burn is 500kg/hr (which I doubt as a Blachawk burns about 550/600Kg/Hr) thats still about 185nm radius of action!
The Sim is due to be operational in Milan Malpensa (sorry if thats spelt wrong) by years end. As for the HUMS I do not know. As already said the SAR avionics are under development for UAE. When they will arrive Im afraid I dont know.
Aser,
It is my understanding that the CCRR is just a fitting to allow gravity refuelling in afore mentioned conditions and is not pressure refuelling. The catch however is the the bowser must have the same CCRR attachment. It may be possible to fit a pressure refuelling hose to the CCRR and limit the pressure of the fuel uplift but I dont know if bowsers have that capability.
ST
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
I cannot comment on the operformance issues here for the AB139, but I have had a look at the new CHC machine in the 12-seat fit (4-abreast seating). That looks pretty cramped so I hate to think what the 15-seat layout (5-abreast) is like. Seat pitch appears to be charter-type aircraft layout as well, i.e. not that much legroom, especially for the tall guys.
I remember well the comments from some crewmen who were used to the S-61 about the AS332L2 cabin size when that came in to service with Bristow for the BP Jigsaw trial. Well, if they thought that was small those on the southern MCA units are in for a big shock when they move from the spacious S-61 to the AB139. I'm not saying it isn't usable, but once you put two crewmen and a stretcher plus seats for them, there wont be a lot of space for manoeuvre, especially trying to get first aid kit from the storage area in the rear. Mind you the AB139 does have a big storage area assuming you can keep to the weight restriction.
I assume that the AB139 is having a twin hoist operation? Again that could be interesting from the door depending on the way the hoist fit is designed (and the hoists used). Is the '139 also going to have some form of crewman hover control as well?
We've all discussed the pilot issues here so far, but I think it is also important to those who are going to work in the back to have input, and I think they are in for a shock when they see what they will have to play with. OK, I have now opened up all the doors for the S-76 and B212/412 SAR crewmen to have their say, but I think their views should be heard as well.
I remember well the comments from some crewmen who were used to the S-61 about the AS332L2 cabin size when that came in to service with Bristow for the BP Jigsaw trial. Well, if they thought that was small those on the southern MCA units are in for a big shock when they move from the spacious S-61 to the AB139. I'm not saying it isn't usable, but once you put two crewmen and a stretcher plus seats for them, there wont be a lot of space for manoeuvre, especially trying to get first aid kit from the storage area in the rear. Mind you the AB139 does have a big storage area assuming you can keep to the weight restriction.
I assume that the AB139 is having a twin hoist operation? Again that could be interesting from the door depending on the way the hoist fit is designed (and the hoists used). Is the '139 also going to have some form of crewman hover control as well?
We've all discussed the pilot issues here so far, but I think it is also important to those who are going to work in the back to have input, and I think they are in for a shock when they see what they will have to play with. OK, I have now opened up all the doors for the S-76 and B212/412 SAR crewmen to have their say, but I think their views should be heard as well.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
S T
Is your information from the Agusta website?
I think the comments we have already seen is that the AB 139 is not living up to the marketing hype (Agusta website) - ie the website is wrong.
Does anybody know the facts? How about the CHC AB 139s in Den Helder what is their weight? Come on speak up AB 139 pilots or be forever damned!
RI
Is your information from the Agusta website?
I think the comments we have already seen is that the AB 139 is not living up to the marketing hype (Agusta website) - ie the website is wrong.
Does anybody know the facts? How about the CHC AB 139s in Den Helder what is their weight? Come on speak up AB 139 pilots or be forever damned!
RI