UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
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
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
ST, yes I think we can safely say that the MCGA will want to go rather further than the Isle of Wight! I'm no authority on the workings of UK SAR, but at the very least I'd have thought they would cover all of the UK territorial waters. The next base going East is RAF Wattisham, so that gives some clue as to how far SE the Lee on Solent machine needs to cover.
Out of interest, what's the deal with the Channel Islands; is that Portland's coverage or the French?
Out of interest, what's the deal with the Channel Islands; is that Portland's coverage or the French?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Bit of both really.
Portland can and has covered it though it's well over the french side.
Depends on the type and seriousness of the incident, as well as who is coordinating it and which aircraft is more readily available.
They have got their own fixed wing SAR aircraft as well as their own lifeboats which they task themselves.
Assuming the SAR 139 has doors either side, is there any worth in having a hoist either side?
A laymans thinking would be that it would help balance the aircraft and gain a little flexibility in which side you winch from.
Portland can and has covered it though it's well over the french side.
Depends on the type and seriousness of the incident, as well as who is coordinating it and which aircraft is more readily available.
They have got their own fixed wing SAR aircraft as well as their own lifeboats which they task themselves.
Assuming the SAR 139 has doors either side, is there any worth in having a hoist either side?
A laymans thinking would be that it would help balance the aircraft and gain a little flexibility in which side you winch from.
Last edited by DanglyBob; 14th Jan 2006 at 15:26.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
DanglyBob
Would you need an AMC on each side then? Also how would you do a winch changeover with someone on the wire?
So, nobody prepared to defend the AB 139...so the rumours about lack of payload and range must be true!
RI
Would you need an AMC on each side then? Also how would you do a winch changeover with someone on the wire?
So, nobody prepared to defend the AB 139...so the rumours about lack of payload and range must be true!
RI
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Running in you crack me up!
Some sort of logic that is! What planet are you on? (island might be more appropriate....)
I think most people in this forum with an interest in SAR have long realized that you are not here to have a discussion but to make a statement (or grind an axe as they say). Shame really because you do have some valid points.
Come on speak up AB 139 pilots or be forever damned!
So, nobody prepared to defend the AB 139...so the rumours about lack of payload and range must be true!
So, nobody prepared to defend the AB 139...so the rumours about lack of payload and range must be true!
I think most people in this forum with an interest in SAR have long realized that you are not here to have a discussion but to make a statement (or grind an axe as they say). Shame really because you do have some valid points.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Sandy Toad and Woolf,
There are a number of rumours (Nightwatchman & Fuel2noise) that the range and payload of the AB 139 is not all that its cracked up to be. If they are true, then the Ab 139 will be worse than the S61, is this progress?
It takes two to have a discussion and so far nobody is prepared to defend the AB 139, so we can't have a discussion.
RI
There are a number of rumours (Nightwatchman & Fuel2noise) that the range and payload of the AB 139 is not all that its cracked up to be. If they are true, then the Ab 139 will be worse than the S61, is this progress?
It takes two to have a discussion and so far nobody is prepared to defend the AB 139, so we can't have a discussion.
RI
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done to all involved in this morning's copybook rescue:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...ey/4664564.stm
There have been questions asked on this thread about the AB139 capability as a SAR helicopter, especially its size and payload. Does anyone know if it could have done this job and picked up 12 at that range?
The BBC Report map seems to suggest that the helicopter came from Portland, but it did (as the text suggests) come from Lee on Solent, at the top right of the map, underneath the UK overview. Thats about 100nm's, and I guess answers the question raised above over who's responsibility it is to cover the Channel Islands.
I'm sure the AB139 would make the distance OK, and probably about 15 mins quicker than the S-61, but I can't see it carrying 12 casualties. Can't remember the record for the back of a 61, but I know they got in a hell of a lot once !
The channel is still one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with several cargo ships having come together in the past few years. It is also one of the busiest passenger ferry routes (although that may be a pre Channel Tunnel statistic) so hopefully this incident will make HMCG have a quick think about the type of aircraft they want to use on the south coast.
I'm sure the AB139 would make the distance OK, and probably about 15 mins quicker than the S-61, but I can't see it carrying 12 casualties. Can't remember the record for the back of a 61, but I know they got in a hell of a lot once !
The channel is still one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with several cargo ships having come together in the past few years. It is also one of the busiest passenger ferry routes (although that may be a pre Channel Tunnel statistic) so hopefully this incident will make HMCG have a quick think about the type of aircraft they want to use on the south coast.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oop North
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
special 25
I take it that from your post that you are not very good at geography, you obviously thought the Start point indicator arrow was the start position of the rescue....... unfortunatley for you that is a place called start point, not far from Dartmouth in Devon, have a look at a map of the area. It has a namesake in the Orkney islands also start point
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angel on the wire
I think you win the prize for this weeks most irrelevant post!
Special 25, I agree that it is a busy area, is the A139 the right aircraft or would something bigger like the S92 be better?
I think you win the prize for this weeks most irrelevant post!
Special 25, I agree that it is a busy area, is the A139 the right aircraft or would something bigger like the S92 be better?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dillon the dog
Angel on the wire
I think you win the prize for this weeks most irrelevant post!
Angel on the wire
I think you win the prize for this weeks most irrelevant post!
Now then, my post has probably taken over the prize for irrelevance!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that "angelonawire" has decided to raise his head above the parapets again and continues with his extraordinary style of being rude to people. While the point is made, it could have been done in a more polite fashion.
However, back to the point. Rumour has it that the concept of using a smaller helicopter was based on the "fact" that the average number of persons rescued per SAR callout was two, therefore a bigger helicopter was not needed. A strange basis to work on when you have one of the busiest shipping areas in the world. There have been numerous cases of large ships in trouble in the Channel over the years. While there may not be the need to rescue large numbers every callout, surely, for this area, a suitably sized helicopter such as the S-92 should be in place to cover for this eventuality? After all, it is not exactly a rare occurrence.
I understand that MCA Helicopters have a task to move fire crews and equipment to vessels on fire in the Channel. Was this considered by the Government team that looked in to the new SAR contracts? It seems a strange choice of aircraft if that task is to be continued. However, more flying hours for the crews I suppose, one flight out to take the team and then the next to bring out their equipment!
I would really like to understand why the team thought the AB139 was a suitable choice for the South Coast.
However, back to the point. Rumour has it that the concept of using a smaller helicopter was based on the "fact" that the average number of persons rescued per SAR callout was two, therefore a bigger helicopter was not needed. A strange basis to work on when you have one of the busiest shipping areas in the world. There have been numerous cases of large ships in trouble in the Channel over the years. While there may not be the need to rescue large numbers every callout, surely, for this area, a suitably sized helicopter such as the S-92 should be in place to cover for this eventuality? After all, it is not exactly a rare occurrence.
I understand that MCA Helicopters have a task to move fire crews and equipment to vessels on fire in the Channel. Was this considered by the Government team that looked in to the new SAR contracts? It seems a strange choice of aircraft if that task is to be continued. However, more flying hours for the crews I suppose, one flight out to take the team and then the next to bring out their equipment!
I would really like to understand why the team thought the AB139 was a suitable choice for the South Coast.
Having flown both the Wessex and Seaking in the SAR role I can see nothing wrong with the decision to have a mixed fleet. During my time I never had a situation where I could not carry all the survivors I was presented with and can only think of one where the Seaking was fully laden and that was off Ireland.
There is a need, however, to make sure that the mix is based evenly around the country and in a way that it is mutually supporting. The recent incident had both the HMCG S61N and Chivenor's Seaking in attendance.
Don't forget is wasn't that long ago when the UK SAR fleet was a mix of Seakings and Whirlwinds and there weren't any cases of lack of lifting capacity for over water rescues that I can recall. The 139 is a quantum leap above the Whirlwind in both carrying and all weather ability
HF
There is a need, however, to make sure that the mix is based evenly around the country and in a way that it is mutually supporting. The recent incident had both the HMCG S61N and Chivenor's Seaking in attendance.
Don't forget is wasn't that long ago when the UK SAR fleet was a mix of Seakings and Whirlwinds and there weren't any cases of lack of lifting capacity for over water rescues that I can recall. The 139 is a quantum leap above the Whirlwind in both carrying and all weather ability
HF
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 139 is a quantum leap above the Whirlwind in both carrying and all weather ability
Couple that with twin hoists, a FLIR (and console in an already small cabin area) and possibly a skyshout system, plus the SAR medical and winching kits which are of necessity these days especially with the medical qualifications crewmen have (more so than in your Whirlwind days), then the ZFM of the aircraft will be high. What will that leave as disposable load?
Perhaps we will be back to Whirlwind lifting capabilities at Whirlwind Radius of Action (what was it 90nm and a capability of lifting about 3-4 people at that range? - never flew it so only guessing).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hummingfrog,
I agree that the A139 is a step up from the Whirlwind, ie a single engine helicopter with limited range and speed, basically day VFR for SAR. However, I think there were capacity problems, for example during the Fastnet Race disaster where the Sea Kings ran out of capacity to rescue all those that needed help and the Whirlwinds lacked the range to do much. But nostalgia isn't what it used to be!
A mixed fleet might be sensible providing the types are mutually supporting, for example a S61/S92 at Lee on Solent and a daylight only A139 at Portland. To lump all your eggs into one basket by having the only SAR coverage between Wattisham and Culdrose, responsible for one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, based on small, as yet unproven, helicopters with possibly a limited payload is a surprising
and some might save brave choice. As Jknife points out, with all the kit a modern SAR helicopter has to carry there will not be much space or payload left in the A139.
I agree that the A139 is a step up from the Whirlwind, ie a single engine helicopter with limited range and speed, basically day VFR for SAR. However, I think there were capacity problems, for example during the Fastnet Race disaster where the Sea Kings ran out of capacity to rescue all those that needed help and the Whirlwinds lacked the range to do much. But nostalgia isn't what it used to be!
A mixed fleet might be sensible providing the types are mutually supporting, for example a S61/S92 at Lee on Solent and a daylight only A139 at Portland. To lump all your eggs into one basket by having the only SAR coverage between Wattisham and Culdrose, responsible for one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, based on small, as yet unproven, helicopters with possibly a limited payload is a surprising
and some might save brave choice. As Jknife points out, with all the kit a modern SAR helicopter has to carry there will not be much space or payload left in the A139.
Thank you AngelonaWire for your georgraphy lesson - I admit, I was totally caught out on that one, but still can't believe that the BBC would use such an insignificant, unknown location, with so many better known towns in that area. I stand corrected, and thank you for your wisdom. I assume from your title, that you are a winchman, and if so, you have my every respect, and of course, eternal admiration at your geography knowledge - I will fall on my sword in due course !!
Back to the subject .... What are the typical statistics for the Northern Coastguard SAR bases - Surely they typically only lift one or two casualities at a time. Sumburgh, the odd fisherman caught up in some machinery, and the same for Stornoway, with the occasional pair of mountain climbers, yet they will get the benefit of the S92. Is this due to the increased range of operation, or are they deemed to require more lifting capacity ??
I agree with JKnife, you can't base the requirement on a typical useage, you have to look at the maximum expected requirement. Lee covers pretty much the whole of the English Channel including most of the primary ferry routes (I'm not sure of the coverage provided by mainland Europe), so I would hope that the 'Disaster Scenario' planners must have had some input into the descision to downsize the helicopter requirement ?? But then when has common sense played any part ...... 1987 - 190 people die in the Zeebrugge ferry disaster, ........ 1994 - RAF Manston SAR base closed and relocated about 75miles further north !!!
Back to the subject .... What are the typical statistics for the Northern Coastguard SAR bases - Surely they typically only lift one or two casualities at a time. Sumburgh, the odd fisherman caught up in some machinery, and the same for Stornoway, with the occasional pair of mountain climbers, yet they will get the benefit of the S92. Is this due to the increased range of operation, or are they deemed to require more lifting capacity ??
I agree with JKnife, you can't base the requirement on a typical useage, you have to look at the maximum expected requirement. Lee covers pretty much the whole of the English Channel including most of the primary ferry routes (I'm not sure of the coverage provided by mainland Europe), so I would hope that the 'Disaster Scenario' planners must have had some input into the descision to downsize the helicopter requirement ?? But then when has common sense played any part ...... 1987 - 190 people die in the Zeebrugge ferry disaster, ........ 1994 - RAF Manston SAR base closed and relocated about 75miles further north !!!