SAR: Search & Rescue Ops
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mystic Meg SAR
A.Agincourt, Roofus(HYDPUMP) et al,
Presumably you have the gift of being able to predict who actually needs rescuing prior to arriving on scene? It is the lack of reliable information that frequently requires SAR crews, civ and mil, to get to the casualty whenever possible and assess the situation for themselves.
Pity the country that gets your form of risk-averse SAR service as only those on a large flat surface in good weather conditions will get rescued.
HAL
PS. Keep up the good work Crab
.
Presumably you have the gift of being able to predict who actually needs rescuing prior to arriving on scene? It is the lack of reliable information that frequently requires SAR crews, civ and mil, to get to the casualty whenever possible and assess the situation for themselves.
Pity the country that gets your form of risk-averse SAR service as only those on a large flat surface in good weather conditions will get rescued.
HAL
PS. Keep up the good work Crab
.
Vie - I echo that sentiment entirely!
AA - as ever you can't read what is actually on the page and react to something you see completely out of context. I didn't say all the people in the Gloucester floods were not 'life at risk', several were definitely saved from a watery grave (and not by me, just to be clear). As has been pointed out, and you would understand if you knew anything about SAR, you are tasked and you respond - making appropriate weather and captaincy decisions en route. Sitting in your warm crewroom saying 'we won't go, the weather looks a bit iffy' isn't an option when lives are at risk.
btw my peers are those who understand SAR and have done it rather than those who make ill-informed comments from the sidelines.
AA - as ever you can't read what is actually on the page and react to something you see completely out of context. I didn't say all the people in the Gloucester floods were not 'life at risk', several were definitely saved from a watery grave (and not by me, just to be clear). As has been pointed out, and you would understand if you knew anything about SAR, you are tasked and you respond - making appropriate weather and captaincy decisions en route. Sitting in your warm crewroom saying 'we won't go, the weather looks a bit iffy' isn't an option when lives are at risk.
btw my peers are those who understand SAR and have done it rather than those who make ill-informed comments from the sidelines.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A.A
I was actually on the ground in those floods.Not in the rescue services but cut off from rising water and my family for a short time. Was I at risk? No. Did I do anything stupid to try to get home? No. Did I see lots of others do really stupid things? Yes! None of them however were flyign helicopters! The most stupid had 4x4's!
I watched one rescue at Worcester docks - Diglis. Dont know who did it [apart from it was yellow and made me miss my old job!]. But what I witnessed was a complete spectrum of professional rescue personnel responding to a major incident [police,fire,RAF and SARA [local search team [all volunteers]] - not a PR event that they could ride the back of!
Does your opinion extend to fire crews who enter swollen rivers? To fire and police crews who take to boats to 'patrol' to check no one requires help. Or to these volunteers who put themeselves in harms way for the good of others?
Taking your risk assessment methodology to this degree would preclude any of them from this activity. Remember though, it was some of these patrols who spotted people cut off in poor situations [and therefore glad for the help] who if left would be in dire situations [and would then neatly fit into when people can be rescued from your risk matrix] assuming you could get to them in time before they were swept away. The fact there were so few lives lost that day is a testement to the rescue services. Who said prevention is better than the cure.
I think you wanted to be a bit provocative at Crabb. Fine. But try to be provocative in a manner that can be defended. I doubt you have ever seriously done SAR. If you have, then its in a country with 8/8ths blue every day. If you had done it in a poor weather country then you would know the thing a SAR crew does best is continually update the weather so they can make the decisions about continuing, landing or turning back. At no stage do they have a tick box with PR event magnitude!
Sadly, I suspect you wil respond again! Take your own advice, risk assess and dont dig any deeper.
I was actually on the ground in those floods.Not in the rescue services but cut off from rising water and my family for a short time. Was I at risk? No. Did I do anything stupid to try to get home? No. Did I see lots of others do really stupid things? Yes! None of them however were flyign helicopters! The most stupid had 4x4's!
I watched one rescue at Worcester docks - Diglis. Dont know who did it [apart from it was yellow and made me miss my old job!]. But what I witnessed was a complete spectrum of professional rescue personnel responding to a major incident [police,fire,RAF and SARA [local search team [all volunteers]] - not a PR event that they could ride the back of!
Does your opinion extend to fire crews who enter swollen rivers? To fire and police crews who take to boats to 'patrol' to check no one requires help. Or to these volunteers who put themeselves in harms way for the good of others?
Taking your risk assessment methodology to this degree would preclude any of them from this activity. Remember though, it was some of these patrols who spotted people cut off in poor situations [and therefore glad for the help] who if left would be in dire situations [and would then neatly fit into when people can be rescued from your risk matrix] assuming you could get to them in time before they were swept away. The fact there were so few lives lost that day is a testement to the rescue services. Who said prevention is better than the cure.
I think you wanted to be a bit provocative at Crabb. Fine. But try to be provocative in a manner that can be defended. I doubt you have ever seriously done SAR. If you have, then its in a country with 8/8ths blue every day. If you had done it in a poor weather country then you would know the thing a SAR crew does best is continually update the weather so they can make the decisions about continuing, landing or turning back. At no stage do they have a tick box with PR event magnitude!
Sadly, I suspect you wil respond again! Take your own advice, risk assess and dont dig any deeper.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARREMF - Thanks for your answer to my ramblings regarding the military manning issue.
Does this imply that the people responsible for mil manning in the RAF or Navy will simply select the required number of aircrew that the winning bidder has requested but then hand them over to be managed and based iaw the bidders needs for the period of their 'detachment'? Surely the mil will want to keep closer control over their assets than that?
Does this imply that the people responsible for mil manning in the RAF or Navy will simply select the required number of aircrew that the winning bidder has requested but then hand them over to be managed and based iaw the bidders needs for the period of their 'detachment'? Surely the mil will want to keep closer control over their assets than that?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Just Coming Over The Threshold
Age: 49
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adge
What a shame, you'll have to search far and wide to seek out such a well balanced, informed and unbiased opinion - not! Difference is that Elvis is missed by many people.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mil Aircrew in SAR-H
Hi SW
As SAREMF has already stated - each Bidder will no doubt have their own proposals as to how to "disperse" the military aircrew across the SAR-H bases. There are good arguments for and against several permutations of doing it - none has the perfect solution - thats life in any organisation is it not? However, the RAF & RN have laid down clear guidance already as to how many of their aircrew will be available for SAR-H, how long they can be employed and to what level of SAR training and capability they will be expected to have achieved during their SAR-H tours. They are, afterall, intended to be the focus for SAR capability within the JHC and RN Maritime helo forces as they return to their expeditionary posts/tasks with those organisations. Indeed a given proportion will have previous SAR experience - ie. at any one time there will not be a majority of brand new military first tourists in the SAR-H system - Suggests there will be chances for 2nd tours for some mil aircrew within SAR-H at some point (but not consecutive tours probably). It is implicit that the SAR-H system in general will always have a large proprtion of civ aircrew who by definition will form the greater SAR experienced caucus - once the system has bedded down after what might prove a fairly lengthy transition period from the present way of doing business. That said, no doubt a fnumber of ex military SAR experienced aircrew will find employment with the SAR-H company - and thus bring with them their mil experience across the board as the 30 years go by!! This happens now of course with the MCA contract but never before has a UK SAR operator been able to offer a potentila personal SAR contract for life (well up to 30 years anyway)
Its a new way of doing business for sure but I for one believe that the new service will have some real opportunities of carrying forward the hard won SAR skills and ethos that all 3 UK SAR providers have developed and contributed over the last 6 decades. No doubt new kit will allow new techniques to be developed too. However, I am not niave enough to believe it will always be easy!!
Cheers
As SAREMF has already stated - each Bidder will no doubt have their own proposals as to how to "disperse" the military aircrew across the SAR-H bases. There are good arguments for and against several permutations of doing it - none has the perfect solution - thats life in any organisation is it not? However, the RAF & RN have laid down clear guidance already as to how many of their aircrew will be available for SAR-H, how long they can be employed and to what level of SAR training and capability they will be expected to have achieved during their SAR-H tours. They are, afterall, intended to be the focus for SAR capability within the JHC and RN Maritime helo forces as they return to their expeditionary posts/tasks with those organisations. Indeed a given proportion will have previous SAR experience - ie. at any one time there will not be a majority of brand new military first tourists in the SAR-H system - Suggests there will be chances for 2nd tours for some mil aircrew within SAR-H at some point (but not consecutive tours probably). It is implicit that the SAR-H system in general will always have a large proprtion of civ aircrew who by definition will form the greater SAR experienced caucus - once the system has bedded down after what might prove a fairly lengthy transition period from the present way of doing business. That said, no doubt a fnumber of ex military SAR experienced aircrew will find employment with the SAR-H company - and thus bring with them their mil experience across the board as the 30 years go by!! This happens now of course with the MCA contract but never before has a UK SAR operator been able to offer a potentila personal SAR contract for life (well up to 30 years anyway)
Its a new way of doing business for sure but I for one believe that the new service will have some real opportunities of carrying forward the hard won SAR skills and ethos that all 3 UK SAR providers have developed and contributed over the last 6 decades. No doubt new kit will allow new techniques to be developed too. However, I am not niave enough to believe it will always be easy!!
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 6th Apr 2008 at 20:53.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Age: 36
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAR procedure
I was wondering if anyone might be able to answer a query based on something I saw on BBC's 'Seaside Rescue' earlier....
An S61 has just winched a person onboard in a stretcher and once he was inside the aircraft one of the rear crew stated that they would need to 'lift him out of the stretcher using the winch' to which one of the pilots replied 'we'll go single-engine then'.
Unfortunately, they then cut away to another story but I'd be interested to know what they meant by going 'single-engine'? All I can think is that it refers to a set speed/height combination (?)
Any thoughts appreciated
An S61 has just winched a person onboard in a stretcher and once he was inside the aircraft one of the rear crew stated that they would need to 'lift him out of the stretcher using the winch' to which one of the pilots replied 'we'll go single-engine then'.
Unfortunately, they then cut away to another story but I'd be interested to know what they meant by going 'single-engine'? All I can think is that it refers to a set speed/height combination (?)
Any thoughts appreciated
Winching 'single'.
Difficult to know without seeing the clip but bear in mind that there is a lot of cut and pasting going on with the editing.
It may have been to do with winching the casualty out of the aircraft when landing on somewhere (maybe hospital) and therefore the pilot deciding to go down to one engine so as to keep power restored rather then a full shutdown. You can shut one engine down which enables you to reduce noise and allow the blades to be stopped whilst the other engine remains at idle and continues to provide power for the winch etc - possibly.
It may have been to do with winching the casualty out of the aircraft when landing on somewhere (maybe hospital) and therefore the pilot deciding to go down to one engine so as to keep power restored rather then a full shutdown. You can shut one engine down which enables you to reduce noise and allow the blades to be stopped whilst the other engine remains at idle and continues to provide power for the winch etc - possibly.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kill Box 85CJ
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
single engine
The pilot just shortened a statement. for ex. "Single engine fly away air speed"...or such. (not sure what terminology they use) Since the hoist operator has control of the patient and is using hoist to help him pull the patient/victim further inside the cabin (out of the slip stream) You as the pilot can start to accelerate and get out of the danger area considering height vs velocity. I assure you the engine is not shut down.
"Everyone happy? Clear to run." Music to my ears.
-Cheers
"Everyone happy? Clear to run." Music to my ears.
-Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kill Box 85CJ
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeepys
Ooops. I guess I hit reply to your statement about being on the ground which makes perfect sense to me.
I wanted to respond to "Jhiles" who posted:
"...An S61 has just winched a person onboard in a stretcher and once he was inside the aircraft one of the rear crew stated that they would need to 'lift him out of the stretcher using the winch' to which one of the pilots replied 'we'll go single-engine then".
I was assuming the helo was in a hover in the video (I didn't see it)and jhiles was curious if an engine was actually shutdown or brought to idle which, of course, would never be done at such a critical phase of flight. So in answer to his question (if the helo was hovering)yes it was height/velocity related. If it was sitting on the ground then Jeepys got a good answer.
Cheers
I wanted to respond to "Jhiles" who posted:
"...An S61 has just winched a person onboard in a stretcher and once he was inside the aircraft one of the rear crew stated that they would need to 'lift him out of the stretcher using the winch' to which one of the pilots replied 'we'll go single-engine then".
I was assuming the helo was in a hover in the video (I didn't see it)and jhiles was curious if an engine was actually shutdown or brought to idle which, of course, would never be done at such a critical phase of flight. So in answer to his question (if the helo was hovering)yes it was height/velocity related. If it was sitting on the ground then Jeepys got a good answer.
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South West Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what they are talking about is when the helo is on the ground, using the winch to get the casualty out of the cabin and onto the stretcher and to save noise etc they shut down the right engine.
Seen them do this before....although I may not be correct...
Seen them do this before....although I may not be correct...
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Cornwall
Age: 77
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was SAR at Lee-on-Solent in the early 90's, it was SOP to shutdown the No2 engine and rotor on the S61N to facilitate casualty offloading but rarely did we use the winch to disembark the casualty on the stretcher with rotors shut down. That was done manually
John
Last edited by TipCap; 28th Jan 2010 at 20:57.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Age: 36
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The impression the clip gave was that it was straight after they winched the casualty onboard whilst in the hover but by the sounds of it it was just a bit of poor editing!
Cheers for the replies
Cheers for the replies
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Cornwall
Age: 77
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever we were winching, we always tried to ensure single engine hover capability - not too easy in an S61N on a windless (calm) day. However, there were circumstances that you had to accept that you were outwith single engine hover but that would not have anything to do with bringing the casualty onboard, unless of course you were on single engine performance limit before but the extra 170 lbs of the casualty would exceed that. Hope I havent totally confused you now I am with you that it was probs an editing thing.
Never got involved with "Seaside Rescue" and it was nice to see the guys I used to work with before I returned North to ABZ but I was involved in "Rescue India Juliet" which was a similar type of programme but only concentrated on the helicopter rescues. Now probably lost in the annals (sp?) of time
John
I am with you that it was probs an editing thing.Never got involved with "Seaside Rescue" and it was nice to see the guys I used to work with before I returned North to ABZ but I was involved in "Rescue India Juliet" which was a similar type of programme but only concentrated on the helicopter rescues. Now probably lost in the annals (sp?) of time
John
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Abroad
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASER - no, we would hover over the target so the winchman is taken straight to the dinghy without swimming. Yes I figured it was like all promotional videos - you what the film crew says, not what you would really do.
What hight do u use when going in over the raft? (without risking to turn it over with the downwash in little or no wind).
What references do u use when over the raft, or u rely on the autohover?
Do u use the same procedure during day (with horizon and good reference on the water) and night (with no horizon and lack of references in the water)?
Best regards
Last edited by ODEN; 2nd Feb 2010 at 13:38.