SAR: Ireland

[BHPS]

Sounds like CHC-Ireland will be staying longer in Ireland working the IMES contracts with the ageing S-61N then, unless they lose the contract to another operator who can provide long range heicopter SAR.

[Bunnion]

Thanks to Arkroyal for the typically British input. Actually Ireland has four dedicated SAR bases... three run by CHC Ireland using S61's and it appears that the Irish Aer Corps are going to lease a fourth (on the civvie register) to replce their Dauphins and crew it themselves. Occassionally the RAF or RN do come over due to their slightly longer range, but only about as often as the Americans do callouts from Mildenhall.

[[email protected]]

Only last week the Chivenor cab refuelled at Cork and went 250nm out to recover 2 burnt crew from the QE2 - it would be nice to see Irish SAR with a decent capability (I mean range not ability). However, even if the S-92 deal had gone through, from the figures quoted by Nick Lappos at the SARForce conference this year, they still wouldn't have had the legs to do that job.
Interestingly, a lot was made of the Irish contract as the first big sale of S-92 - now that it has fallen through, what is to be the sales pitch? Yellow Merlin with a 1000nm radius of action anyone?

[bluerabbit]

Irish S-92 Contract

Following the minister's decision yesterday I feel, mr. smith has once again delivered on his promise!!!! ( well as far as he is concerned).
The first Air Corps review board for a medium range SAR aircraft was set up in the early eighties. Since then it has being review after review. When the most recent board was set up last year it had to report back to the minister by mid 2001. Unfortunately, it was already evident that he was once again was going to play the political game.
Since the tragic accident in tramore on the 2nd of july 1999, the sequence of events has been as follows:

1. post accident : minister announces new board to find replacement for dauphin SA365 Fi.

2. Board assembled in early 2001 to report back to the government with recommendation by mid 2001.

3. As with all these type of contracts, work was delayed. by sept. 2001 the board recommended that while all aircraft were suitable to fill the operational roles there was one aircaft which was found the most suitable !!!!!!

4. after a short period and rumours that the S-92 project were offering a package along with the sale of their aircraft, the Minister change the terms of reference of the contract procedures to get a best and final offer from all concerned. this was post Sept. 11th and was a very good move especially with the way the aviation market was been hit. unfotunately when the contract was offered to S-92, eurocopter, rightly so, put in a apppeal to the high court and the stale mate continued from there.
5. Obviously with the the slow down in the Irish economy and cut backs the first thing to go was going to be the medium range contract.

So from a political point of view where does this leave the minister. Well he did what he said he would do:

1. Set up a board.
2. Offer Contracts to whatever compny was found the most suitable.
3. It's not his fault that the whole thing was slowed up!!!!!
4. It was not his fault that just as a final decision is to be made by the high court, that his department was told to cut back it's budget !!!!!!! and therefore unfortunately, and with his deepest regret !!!!!!! he had to pull the plug on the biggest military acquistion in the history of the State!!!!!!!!!

It was not his fault!!!!!! , it's Politics!!!!!

It is interesting to note that while this contract was ongoing and in the media lime light , there was also a board set up by the department to look at up grading the dauphin's. It strange that when a organisation is so determined to get a new fleet of aircraft,that at the same time they are also sourcing the possiblilty of upgrading an aircraft that they had already agreed ( in the public arena!!!) should be got rid of.


So I feel disappointed for the whole SAR culture in Ireland today. People, wheather Coastal rescue, mountain rescue, RNLI, and the voluntary groups around the coast have all lost a great oppurtunity to enhance their voluntary operations in the hope of helping those in trouble.

So where does the Irish SAR operation from here ........
Thankfully CHC are there to cover the gaps and I congratulate them. They worked hard to get Waterford SAR up and running and now with their three bases and their leasing of a medium lift aircraft (S-61) to the Irish Air Corps, they are now regardless of what way our good friend !!!! Mr. smith wants to call it, the only SAR organisation in Ireland.

In closing, I also wish the Air Corps all the Best. They are hardworking professional and have and will do a very professional and worth while service for the State. it is a pity that those for whom they work for, haven't the same admiration.:o

[MarkD]

Needs

I agree with the folks who say that we are happy to depend on RN/RAF as we depend on UK for so many things - abortion, hazardous waste incineration, football players.

SAR is a NEED. We are apparently buying prop trainers instead - according to the Sunday Independent for air defence - which we could live without another while I think, or contract it out.

Bluerabbit - Smith has replaced one recently announced programme [trainers] for a previously announced. Why not last in first out? Someone in DoD must like CHC...

[Nick Lappos]

[email protected] said in this thread:

"Only last week the Chivenor cab refuelled at Cork and went 250nm out to recover 2 burnt crew from the QE2 - it would be nice to see Irish SAR with a decent capability (I mean range not ability). However, even if the S-92 deal had gone through, from the figures quoted by Nick Lappos at the SARForce conference this year, they still wouldn't have had the legs to do that job.
Interestingly, a lot was made of the Irish contract as the first big sale of S-92 - now that it has fallen through, what is to be the sales pitch? Yellow Merlin with a 1000nm radius of action anyone?"

Dear crab;

If you must quote me, try to remember what I said, OK?

I have published the actual slide shown at the SAR conference, which shows that the S-92 can reach out to 350 nm raduis, and at 250 nm radius can rescue 20 people! With external fuel, the S-92 has more range than the EH-101.

I will gladly collect on the beer I think you owe me!

Perhaps you were at the OTHER sar conference, the one at Yoevil?

Here is the site:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/llappos/Image11.gif

[rjsquirrel]

The Irish deal smells kind of funny. The French went bughouse when the Sikorsky folks beat them on price (court papers are said to show millions lower S-92 total price), and also beat them on technical capability. They panicked at the thought of losing in Ireland after losing in Austria to the Blackhawk. Rumor has it they are also sweating the Canada helicopter program, where they told the Canadians that they were all wrong with the tender, which couldn't be met by the Super Puma. When all else fails, blamez le customer.

The Irish business deal about jobs was tossed to the press by the Eurocopter guys, who forgot to mention that they had also offered, in writing, to match the US deal, pound for pound!

The real loser is the Air Corps, who were sued by a losing supplier, as if you could be sued by a vegatable stand if you walked away without buying their fruit. It takes balls to do that and get away with it. Too bad their lawyers are better than their helicopters.

[Dogstar]

How many pilots and aircraft are there currently in the Irish Air Corps? What are service conditions pay and life like? Are there many foreigners flying in the emerald isle? Do people think that this blow will bring the Corps to its knees?

[[email protected]]

Nick, I thought I might draw a response with my post! I have just looked at your slide and the line drops short of 250nm on your graph. I also seem to remember that the external fuel tank option was not a standard S92 fit and would require extensive modification to the sponsons - presumably requiring further certification. Therefore to say that the S92 has more range than the Merlin is not true. To say it would have more range if you put bigger tanks on is like saying the Merlin could fly to 30 West if it had a refuelling probe - neither actually exist on production models. If you use an internal fuel option then you severely restrict the number of survivors you can rescue. The poor old Sea King can rescue 18 people at 250+ nm so the new toy isn't much of an improvement in capability.

Has anyone else bought or ordered the S92 yet?

Your round I believe

[zaplead]

I agree with Bunnion.....

Arkroyal,
As a British citizen with immense pride in our military SAR capability I am compelled to distance myself from your 'imperialistic' comments.
In the UK & Eire we have a SAR force with a heritage that has proven itself to be a world-leader.
Throughout the history of SAR this has been because to those involved have used their flexibility, ingenuity & determination to get the job done despite a lack of equipment or political backing.
As Dr Micheal Woods succinctly noted "Geography & politics have no meaning to those in distress".
In their recent audit by Price Waterhouse Cooper the Irish Coastguard statistics "compared favourable with comparable countries" & their performance was described as "excellent".
Assisting those is distress requires a team-effort right from the operator who takes the emergency call.
The focus must be on getting the job done & not on building kudo's.
You don't get any extra points for breaking records on a SAR mission.
Peace-time SAR has been borne out of humanity & part of that is the ideology that we will help anyone, at anytime, even those whose predicament is due to their own negligence.
In times of crisis we occasionally have to seek the help of those with resources that are complementary to our own.
Recognising when a task requires additional assistance to be accomplished safely & efficiently is an integral part of mission planning.
I believe in letting the politicians do the politics, leaving us to do what really matters..............

[Nick Lappos]

[email protected],

The S-92 SAR aircraft has 2x185 gallon internal tanks, as does the Irish aircraft. This gives it over 350 NM radius of action, while still allowing between 16 and 20 internal seats, litter stowage and all mission equipment. The chart shows that, its the OTHER line, the one you didn't see.

Eyeglasses made in Yoevil, Crab?

I define the max range of an aircraft as its range at max fuel capacity, not by the size of its "normal" tanks. So does the rest of the world. The EH-101 has only a bit more useful load than a 92, and the 101 burns about 15 to 20% more fuel to go a mile, so it has less maximum range. One of the costs of lugging around a third engine, and of having a lower payload/gross weight factor.

The idea of what an aircraft can do is different if you decide that it must be in a brochure, or if it can do it. Bizarrely, I think what an aircraft can do is what it can do. We take sheet metal into one end of the plant, and fly it out the other end, so we become used to describing what we can do. The limitations of range are not the fuel tankage, they are the ability to fly efficiently at the weight. Most helicopters have a max range, with full payload devoted to fuel, of about 1000 NM. This is a physical limitation of the physics of the machine.

If you take an S-92 on the ramp, and put the aux fuel onto it until it has no more gross weight to spare, and you do the same with an EH-101, and then they fly out as far as they will go, the S-92 will go farther. It will also fly faster, as the best range speed for the 101 is 123 knots, and the 92 Vbr is 138. External fuel tanks have now been designed for 92, they look much like those on the H-53 family, leaving much internal room for the SAR mission.

OTOH, your comment about the Sea King shows that you do not appreciate what has occurred in design and safety features in the last 40 years. Do you have your kids drive around in a 1959 Chevy? No seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, dual brakes, spill proof fuel tank, crashworthy bumpers, cast iron dashboard for your face, rigid steering wheel to spear you and finish you off? The measure of progress is doing more in many areas, not just one.

The safety improvements brought about by design and regulation improvements in the 4 decades between Sea King and S-92 are eye-watering, and easily swept away by comparisons like yours, usually made by politicians and lawyers, I must admit. This is the first time I have heard it from a pilot!

Crashworthiness of fuel and structure, Cat A from a rig, control system redundancies, critical parts redundancies, flaw and damage tolerant fatigue parts, bird strike resiliance, energy absorbing seats, the list is endless. I did a study of the paragraphs of the FAR requirements, virtually all devoted to safety, to see what changes have been made for each model from its design until today. S-61 (Sea King) - 80% changed, as-332/L2 (Super Puma) - 66% changed, EH-101 40% changed, and S-92 -2% changed.

Just because a helo looks new, or was built yesterday does not mean it has any modern safety features. The "grandfather" clauses of FAR do not require that modern features be retrofitted into the production line.

There are several customers for 92 now, with 21 aircraft so far committed. We certify this year. The EH-101 passed this point back in 1993, when it was new. Look back in 9 years, crab, and ask those questions. With some luck (and some modern safety features) we might both still be here!

[Irlandés]

My heart really goes out to the Air Corps on this one. Although I never got the opportunity to join their ranks, their influence on me when I was younger was instrumental in me getting into the helicopter world. I used to have to cross the helipad (the prohibited shortcut) at Our Lady of Lourdes hospital in Dun Laoghaire on the way to school and many was the day there would be an Alouette III there bringing in accident victims to the back trauma unit. I used to be fascinated (still am!) by the whole thing. Normally I wouldn't bother the pilots who had enough on their plates but one day they had shut down and seemed fairly relaxed so I asked could I get in. I got the full tour! Their enthusiasm and professionalism really inspired me. And here I am 12 years later on the other side of the world flying helicopters.

Can't for the life of me understand the motivation behind Arkroyal's comments. Or maybe after thirty years of studying human nature, I understand his comments all to well... It reminds me of a comment I overheard a US F-16 pilot saying at the Baldonnel airshow when the Silver Swallows were taxiing out to do their display. "Hey guys here come the Irish Air 'Force'... all of it!" Seemed funny at the time, but in the light of the Tramore accident, you've really got to wonder if they're getting the short end of the stick. And now this!

Irlandés

[[email protected]]

That told me then!


BTW Nick I had seen the other line - it did not specify anything regarding number of seats or role equipment - just a red line with 6 survivors taking up 1200lbs of payload.
The line of fuel on your payload graph is at 4000lbs both with 4900lbs of fuel and with the internal option of 7330lbs, why? How much payload is available at max normal fuel - I am assuming that at max normal plus internal fuel the aircraft is at Maximum Allowable Take off Weight of around 27000lbs.

I am sure the S92 is a fabulous aircraft, it's just a shame we ended up with the Merlin as a support helicopter as I feel yours would have been the best aircraft for that job. No one would like a modern, safe aircraft to fly in more than me but when an old design like the Sea King keeps getting the job done despite appalling serviceability, the bean counters will find other things to spend the money on.

One last question - is CAA certification more or less stringent than FAA and when were the latest FAA regs that the S92 meets/exceeds updated?


Apologies to all for sidetracking the thread somewhat, I can understand the Irish AAC spitting feathers over this about turn.

[Nick Lappos]

crab,

No sidetrack this is the fun stuff!

The payload range curve is maxed at the top by the gross weight of the aircraft, so at the top, the fuel is not at max, it is exactly the fuel needed to do the stated raduis mission, increasing toward the right corner until max fuel is reached, and then the "southeast" slope where max fuel takes you farther as the average mission weight of the machine is less.

That curve is for the S-92 with MGW at 26,150 pounds (note in the right corner the TO weight of 25,961). The H-92 has 28,300 MGW, so it gains 2150 pounds of fuel (and over 200 NM range).

S/H-92 is to be certified to FAR/JAR so it will match all of the requirements (BCAR now accepts JAR), additionally the transmissions, rotors and such are designed to US Army ballistic and other requirements since the components will go on the next model Black Hawk.

S/H-92 is being certified to FAR/JAR 29 amendment 44 (I checked and the certification basis for S/H-92 is amendment 45), which is current now (two administrative paragraphs were changed subsequently to remove old paragraphs, the design standards were not affected). We designed to future FAR to try and capture all the benefits, even though serious design started in 1995.I checked and the certification basis for S/H-92 is amendment 45

[MarkD]

Irish Air Corps aircraft inventory

Dogstar:

IAC types and numbers

Certainly what jumps out at one is the number of rotor types, which must surely have a cost in spares inventory, type training etc. Surely some consolidation must happen here, especially if a completely new type eventually joins the Air Corps such as S-92.

[not too dissimilar to what seemed like 80 different types at EI in the early 90's]

The fault of the tender process was not that offset was required, for a lot of countries drive such bargains, but merely that it was attempted to be shoehorned in at a late stage. Smith would have lost face if he did the right thing - immediate re-tender specifying offset, compensation paid to all previous entrants if no court actions on foot of the voiding of the previous deal.

[MarkD]

what happens when you hang onto your helos too long - IAC please note

Sea King takes 13 days to fly across Canada

[Grey Area]

Lets not start a slagging match. As capable as the Irish SAR units are, the Irish military and civil contracted areas of responsibility are defined internationally. It is not for a lack of capability on the Irish part nor a neo-imperialistic power projection on the UK part but international agreement that see UK SAR efforts west of Eire.

[ase engineer]

Sorry to be late on the reply, but I only just discovered this interesting forum.
But in the interests of accuracy
"like saying the Merlin could fly to 30 West if it had a refuelling probe - neither actually exist on production models. " take a look at
http://www.gkn-whl.co.uk/gallery/eh1...es/eh-0034.jpg

and have a guess at what that pointy thing on the front of the Production RAF aircraft is.

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

Nick

Why does your slide show that the payload is constant over 260 NM despite burning about 2 hours of gas?

Even your companies technical specs contradict what your graph shows.www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,534,00.pdf . It quotes a Max Gross Weight of 11,861Kg and you quote a TOW of 10,441 Kg with max internal fuel. By the gift of simple mathematics, the difference between the 2 figures = 1420Kg OR some 380 Kg less than you quote as available payload on your graph! This is indeed a marvellous Tardis like helicopter. Perhaps you should come and work for Wastelands as they could do with a new 'creative' marketing director!

Your quote of 250NM radius plus 30 Min reserve also seems fanciful since the company literature quotes max range with no reserves as 538NM. At range speed this would give you 469.5 NM range (235 NM radius) with 30 mins reserve at range and not endurance speed, but even so, it would flipping tight and is not quite the 250NM you suggest. You would also have to add on the 2.5 min per hoist op for the 20 survivors so we would now be looking at a maximum radius of action with hoisting 20 pax and 30 min reserves of about 180NM - DOH!

The 538NM Range quoted at 137kts = 3.92 hours of flying, therefore given this is to tanks dry, and your max internal fuel is 2,253Kg, this give a burn rate of about 575 Kg/hr - If this is true on an 12,000 kg aircraft, can we get those engines fitted to the CH47 as it is about 2/3 of the fuel used prorata by that beast.

Oh and by the way, the max radius of action on the Merlin will only be limited by the availability of inflight catering and a suitably equipped C130 tanker to give it some gas.

If you are going to get arsey with Crab, get your facts inline with your company's blurb - mine's a brandy by the way?

HPT

[Heliport]

Good to see you back on the forum, HPT.
Thought you'd left us!