UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NICKLAPPOS
To run a full UK SAR base you will require per crew/ shift one qualified experienced SAR captain, one qualified co-pilot (ie two arms, two legs and a head and grunts when asked a question) one qualified experienced SAR senior crewman/winch op, one medically qualified, physically fit, no fear winchman, at least one licensed engineer and you could get away with a non licensed fitter as the second engineer. You then need the support staff such as admin, cleaners, logistics and not forgetting a pool of 'floaters' in case any aircrew or engineers throw a wobbler.
A lot of rear crew recruitment will be required as the majority of the BHL guys are approaching retirement. Military sources are drying up as the RAF is now offering professional pay spine money to rear crew and bonuses for retention. Most Navy guys if willing to leave will not wish to relocate to the outer isles.
cost approx: captain £ 65k-75k PA , co-joe £40k-50k PA , Senior crewman £40-50k PA , Winchman , £32-38k PA , licened engineer £25-£40k PA , non-licensed engineer £20-30k PA
that is for one shift, with european working time directives and flight time limitations the crew and engineers are limited to hours on shift especially the crew a max of 2000 hrs PA therefore to run one base 8 pilots reqd 8 crewmen and 8 engineers
approx cost for each base £1,012,000 per annum on salaries alone that is $2,064,480 Canadian without logistics admin and 'floaters'
these figures do not include remote island allowances, such as cost of living difference, travel to the mainland, heating allowances, housing.....BHL currently provide all of this to the Northern SAR bases
happy budgeting !!
A lot of rear crew recruitment will be required as the majority of the BHL guys are approaching retirement. Military sources are drying up as the RAF is now offering professional pay spine money to rear crew and bonuses for retention. Most Navy guys if willing to leave will not wish to relocate to the outer isles.
cost approx: captain £ 65k-75k PA , co-joe £40k-50k PA , Senior crewman £40-50k PA , Winchman , £32-38k PA , licened engineer £25-£40k PA , non-licensed engineer £20-30k PA
that is for one shift, with european working time directives and flight time limitations the crew and engineers are limited to hours on shift especially the crew a max of 2000 hrs PA therefore to run one base 8 pilots reqd 8 crewmen and 8 engineers
approx cost for each base £1,012,000 per annum on salaries alone that is $2,064,480 Canadian without logistics admin and 'floaters'
these figures do not include remote island allowances, such as cost of living difference, travel to the mainland, heating allowances, housing.....BHL currently provide all of this to the Northern SAR bases
happy budgeting !!
Last edited by ALANBRISTOW; 15th Dec 2005 at 20:48.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Out on a dark Stormy night
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money Talk
Whats all this money talk about just accept the fact that CHC Scotia have got the UK SAR contract and are going to be using S92's and AB139's..
Best of Luck to all the CHC guys envolved and well done to the team who won the contract..
And the Bristows lads who will be changing uniform soon!!!
Also the Bristows lads best of luck in the future and a job well done and safe Flying until 2007..
Best of Luck to all the CHC guys envolved and well done to the team who won the contract..
And the Bristows lads who will be changing uniform soon!!!
Also the Bristows lads best of luck in the future and a job well done and safe Flying until 2007..
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALANBRISTOW - I don't know what is more annoying, that you are in all CAPS or that you stole the name of a great guy.
How many aircraft per base, should I assume the 8x8x8 is for 1 aircraft? I will revise the estimate, but so far, you seem under my budget for salaries, frankly.
How many aircraft per base, should I assume the 8x8x8 is for 1 aircraft? I will revise the estimate, but so far, you seem under my budget for salaries, frankly.
Contract value ??
CHC recently posted their 2nd Quarter results. Within the report is the following
" - a five year contract from the United Kingdom Maritime and
Coastguard Agency (MCA) for the provision of commercial search
and rescue helicopter services from four bases in the U.K.
commencing July 1, 2007. The contract requires the deployment
of four Sikorsky S-92s and three Agusta Bell AB139s and is
valued at approximately $215 million over the five year period;"
So at todays exchange rates that makes about 105mln pounds.
HTH....
" - a five year contract from the United Kingdom Maritime and
Coastguard Agency (MCA) for the provision of commercial search
and rescue helicopter services from four bases in the U.K.
commencing July 1, 2007. The contract requires the deployment
of four Sikorsky S-92s and three Agusta Bell AB139s and is
valued at approximately $215 million over the five year period;"
So at todays exchange rates that makes about 105mln pounds.
HTH....
FWIW, Flight International reported
"Although the interim five-year contract is expected to be worth only about GBP50 million ($86 million), the competitors saw it as an important stepping stone to the larger SAR Harmonisation project, which envisages replacing all the UK's existing civil and military SAR helicopter fleet from 2012."
Link and picture, here.
"Although the interim five-year contract is expected to be worth only about GBP50 million ($86 million), the competitors saw it as an important stepping stone to the larger SAR Harmonisation project, which envisages replacing all the UK's existing civil and military SAR helicopter fleet from 2012."
Link and picture, here.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seem the topic go to a battle CHC versus Bristow. Well change has never been easy. I heard pilot complaint about aging A/C for years. Well finally they will have the latest and the greatest. Financially is not the first time CHC had prove wrong to many people, (look at their share- 1996= around 6.00 CDN, now after split= 26.33) and many term of the contract with are not aware of, what you can recharge, taxes, etc... At the end it come to have the job done, so good luck gents.
FH
FH
ALANBRISTOW - since todays cojoes are tomorrows Captains, I hope they are capable of more than just breathing and grunting - after all, that is the winchman's jobspec 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wherever
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyuone have anything sensible to say?
CHC won the contract. Let them get on with it. Let them see how the aircraft develop. Look to the future instead of giving it a kicking before it even happens.
The Mil SARF is in a bit of a state serviceability wise. If CHC can point the way forward - good on them.
Bitching about things like aircraft selection now will not change anything so why waste your keyboards.
Rant over.
CHC won the contract. Let them get on with it. Let them see how the aircraft develop. Look to the future instead of giving it a kicking before it even happens.
The Mil SARF is in a bit of a state serviceability wise. If CHC can point the way forward - good on them.
Bitching about things like aircraft selection now will not change anything so why waste your keyboards.
Rant over.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saint Evil,
Why can't we discuss the suitability of the aircraft about to be used for UK SAR.
If anything it might prove that they are a good choice.
Surely that's what PPRUNE is all about!
Why can't we discuss the suitability of the aircraft about to be used for UK SAR.
If anything it might prove that they are a good choice.
Surely that's what PPRUNE is all about!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The choice of aircraft is critical for the task. An aircraft that is financially advantageous to the operator is not necessarily the best aircraft for the job.
The good old S61 - bless its cotton socks - had many advantages:-
1. Large cabin - 35 survivors on one job, room for euipment
2. Slow, large diameter rotor (downwash, hover stability etc)
3. Powerful tailrotor
4. Frugal fuel burn - 1050lb/hour
5. Reliabilty
6. Big cockpit
7. Amphibious
8. Twin wheel main undercarriage and tailwheel - maneouverable
9. Big cargo door
10. Good C of G range - weight on winch etc
11. Good operating range
Can any of the contenders match up?
The good old S61 - bless its cotton socks - had many advantages:-
1. Large cabin - 35 survivors on one job, room for euipment
2. Slow, large diameter rotor (downwash, hover stability etc)
3. Powerful tailrotor
4. Frugal fuel burn - 1050lb/hour
5. Reliabilty
6. Big cockpit
7. Amphibious
8. Twin wheel main undercarriage and tailwheel - maneouverable
9. Big cargo door
10. Good C of G range - weight on winch etc
11. Good operating range
Can any of the contenders match up?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARowl,
You have made an impressive list, and it shows how good the S61 has been, but many of those items are shared with a more modern helo. In addition, the next generation can add value (perhaps at the cost of other virtues) here:
Crashworthy structure and absorbing seats to pretect crew and survivors
Crashworthy fuel system to prevent post-crash fires
Floats for Sea State 5 or 6
Tail rotor aurhority for winds at 45 knots
Excess power to support substantial vertical climb in nil wind at maximum SAR weight
All structures, including rotor heads and blades tolerant of significant flaws without crack initiation
Integral electronic maintenance thru HUMS, maintenance computer, onboard diagnostics and pubs with on-line update
Full flat panel symbolic displays with checklists
Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System integrated into displays
Advanced nav-coupled FMS/autopilot
Protection from turbine bursts
Full Electro Magnetic Interference protection
Full lightening strike protection
30% reduction in maintenance and operating costs
That the original has stood so long is a testament to its great design. Imagine how the 61 looked to those who stepped out of the piston aircraft when it was fielded back in 1961!
You have made an impressive list, and it shows how good the S61 has been, but many of those items are shared with a more modern helo. In addition, the next generation can add value (perhaps at the cost of other virtues) here:
Crashworthy structure and absorbing seats to pretect crew and survivors
Crashworthy fuel system to prevent post-crash fires
Floats for Sea State 5 or 6
Tail rotor aurhority for winds at 45 knots
Excess power to support substantial vertical climb in nil wind at maximum SAR weight
All structures, including rotor heads and blades tolerant of significant flaws without crack initiation
Integral electronic maintenance thru HUMS, maintenance computer, onboard diagnostics and pubs with on-line update
Full flat panel symbolic displays with checklists
Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System integrated into displays
Advanced nav-coupled FMS/autopilot
Protection from turbine bursts
Full Electro Magnetic Interference protection
Full lightening strike protection
30% reduction in maintenance and operating costs
That the original has stood so long is a testament to its great design. Imagine how the 61 looked to those who stepped out of the piston aircraft when it was fielded back in 1961!
SARowl...
The USCG has used the 365 for years...I would suggest the 139 will be far better than that for SAR. Granted the USCG also has JayHawks (Seahawk derivative) for longer range flights.
The USCG has used the 365 for years...I would suggest the 139 will be far better than that for SAR. Granted the USCG also has JayHawks (Seahawk derivative) for longer range flights.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USCG has used the 365 for years
They are doing yet another engine mod or change as we speak as well.
The size/capability of the aircraft itself is relevant only in comparison to the mission tasks being specified by the buyer. Or...it would seem to me.
If the USCG could be happy with the 365....and the machine was capable of performing the mission it was chosen for....then what is the problem?
The better argument is whether the mission spec set forth in the contract is the correct set of specs.....thus the burden is for the CoastGuard to justify the mission specs being used to evaluate the various aircraft.
The decision on aircraft is done by the specs...not by the Peanut Gang passing judgement upon what they would like to see flying the mission.
A proper case in point is the Osprey procurement in the USA....the guys flying the missions prefer big Sikorsky helicopters or Chinooks to Osprey's.....but the powers that be are shoving the Osprey down the throats of the guys in the field doing the flying.
The size/capability of the aircraft itself is relevant only in comparison to the mission tasks being specified by the buyer. Or...it would seem to me.
If the USCG could be happy with the 365....and the machine was capable of performing the mission it was chosen for....then what is the problem?
The better argument is whether the mission spec set forth in the contract is the correct set of specs.....thus the burden is for the CoastGuard to justify the mission specs being used to evaluate the various aircraft.
The decision on aircraft is done by the specs...not by the Peanut Gang passing judgement upon what they would like to see flying the mission.
A proper case in point is the Osprey procurement in the USA....the guys flying the missions prefer big Sikorsky helicopters or Chinooks to Osprey's.....but the powers that be are shoving the Osprey down the throats of the guys in the field doing the flying.
Nick
One issue you do not mention is rotor downwash strength. Compared to the S61 the 92 can have much higher disc loading (ie small disc diameter, high AUW). This becomes very relevant during SAR, for example pushing down/away a floating object, and most importantly the possibility of the crewman, stretcher entering a high-speed rotation when on the wire, which is at best debilitating and at worst, I am told, potentially fatal).
I have to admit I am not sure whether there are SAR S92s actually in service yet, but if there are has anyone had any experiences of the downwash problem?
And Nick, before you say it, of course the 225 is likely to have exactly the same issue!
HC
One issue you do not mention is rotor downwash strength. Compared to the S61 the 92 can have much higher disc loading (ie small disc diameter, high AUW). This becomes very relevant during SAR, for example pushing down/away a floating object, and most importantly the possibility of the crewman, stretcher entering a high-speed rotation when on the wire, which is at best debilitating and at worst, I am told, potentially fatal).
I have to admit I am not sure whether there are SAR S92s actually in service yet, but if there are has anyone had any experiences of the downwash problem?
And Nick, before you say it, of course the 225 is likely to have exactly the same issue!
HC
And it won't be as bad as the Merlin.
Didn't I read in the early days of S92 vs EC225 comparisons, that the S92 is a very power-hungry machine in the hover - Something to do with all the lift being degraded by the huge slap roof of the 6ft square cabin. Is it going to be up to the job of winching at max all up weight on a still wind day.
I'm sure it has been checked out and all the hoops jumped through, but the S-92 is such a new machine, and I don't even think there is a SAR variant yet - How can we possibly be bidding for commercial contracts with it - Let alone the UK Coastguard !!
And in the same regard, don't even mention the AB139 - Is it actually flying yet, let alone ready for this sort of work in 18 months !
I'm sure it has been checked out and all the hoops jumped through, but the S-92 is such a new machine, and I don't even think there is a SAR variant yet - How can we possibly be bidding for commercial contracts with it - Let alone the UK Coastguard !!
And in the same regard, don't even mention the AB139 - Is it actually flying yet, let alone ready for this sort of work in 18 months !
The down wash argument has being going on for years.
The Seaking will have too strong a downwash compared to the Wessex which will have too strong a downwash compared to the Whirlwind was the mantra from my time on SAR
We coped with no real problems - increased the hover height to 50 ft and away you go. I would have always preferred to go on a SAROP in a Seaking than a Whirlwind. Who remembers the slow winch and having to use canvas tapes to increase the winches capability during cliff winching on a Whirlwind.
This is progress and I am sure that the S92 will turn into a very capable a/c once the SOPs have been written to best use its abilities.
Anybody for night winching in a Whirlwind rather than a S92
Don't think there will be many takers
HF
(The Seaking had a boat shaped hull because if you had an engine failure in the hover over water you usually became a boat very quickly )
The Seaking will have too strong a downwash compared to the Wessex which will have too strong a downwash compared to the Whirlwind was the mantra from my time on SAR
We coped with no real problems - increased the hover height to 50 ft and away you go. I would have always preferred to go on a SAROP in a Seaking than a Whirlwind. Who remembers the slow winch and having to use canvas tapes to increase the winches capability during cliff winching on a Whirlwind.
This is progress and I am sure that the S92 will turn into a very capable a/c once the SOPs have been written to best use its abilities.
Anybody for night winching in a Whirlwind rather than a S92
Don't think there will be many takers
HF
(The Seaking had a boat shaped hull because if you had an engine failure in the hover over water you usually became a boat very quickly
)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were to check off SARowl's list for the S-92, I would find most items quite nicely met, including downwash. Recent work by the USAF in evaluations found that the hoist/door was excellent, and litters and people were easily hoisted with the system.
Change is never easy, but when we set concrete, we stifle innovation. The S-92 is a far safer and better helicopter than the lovely, venerable S-61, just as my 2003 car does so many things so much better than my old 1963 Chevy did.
Nostalgia is not a design constraint.
Change is never easy, but when we set concrete, we stifle innovation. The S-92 is a far safer and better helicopter than the lovely, venerable S-61, just as my 2003 car does so many things so much better than my old 1963 Chevy did.
Nostalgia is not a design constraint.