UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Lunar,
Do you suggest by your question that one must work your way up the totem pole increment by increment?
How many BHL HP pilots did the Bell 47/R22/206 training scheme to step into the cockpit of 61's , Puma's, and other large aircraft? They seemed to fare well. The military does this as a routine.
I would quite happily train an ab-initio student on the 212 disregarding costs as an issue.
I maintain a helicopter is a helicopter...some are bigger...some faster...some carry more...some have fancier avionics...but they are all helicopters. You pull up on the lever in your left hand....and the same thing happens....you push forward on that stick in your right hand and the same thing happens...push the pedals and the same thing happens.
Each machine is different but they are all helicopters. We can make the system complex and costly...or we can go the other way and still achieve the same safety levels.
Look at the difference in the way we handle type ratings between the UK and the USA....that alone should indict the concept of "typing" helicopters. We use weight as the thresh hold for determing "type" ratings. I would suggest to you that a SPIFR EC-135 is far more sophisticated than a VFR only BV-107 used only for underslung work but the 135 does not require a type rating and the 107 does. In the UK...everything has a type rating and related "type technical" exams and checkrides done by the licensing authority. We on the other hand rely upon the operator to give differences training and checkrides except when we require the "type" rating based upon weight.
The conversion to larger more complex machines should not be based upon previous types flown but be based upon ability and other qualifying experience.
I can assure you, a pilot with a broad reach of experience in 206's will be the better risk for 212 flying than a pilot that has thousands of hours doing the same bus run out across the North Sea in a 332/225. The one will have skills the other does not. Each will be better suited for the kind of flying he has been doing as a result of that experience.
The transition to multi-engine flying is not all that complex when compared to learning the skill sets required for your average utility helicopter pilot flying 206's in moutains, deserts, offshore, ag work, and doing underslung work in all those places.
I would think nothing of hiring a well experienced 206 pilot for an offshore flying job...but not the reverse. There is a mystique (more like an Urban Myth) that suggests working for a large North Sea operator qualifies one as a helicopter pilot. I would suggest it well qualifies one for one sector of the industry.
Lord knows we proved flying 212's in hot and humid conditions in Nigeria was more difficult than flying on the North Sea. Ask your mates who did that routine and get them to describe how many aircraft got over torqued or bent while they got the grasp of 212 flying after being on the North Sea for years.
Do you suggest by your question that one must work your way up the totem pole increment by increment?
How many BHL HP pilots did the Bell 47/R22/206 training scheme to step into the cockpit of 61's , Puma's, and other large aircraft? They seemed to fare well. The military does this as a routine.
I would quite happily train an ab-initio student on the 212 disregarding costs as an issue.
I maintain a helicopter is a helicopter...some are bigger...some faster...some carry more...some have fancier avionics...but they are all helicopters. You pull up on the lever in your left hand....and the same thing happens....you push forward on that stick in your right hand and the same thing happens...push the pedals and the same thing happens.
Each machine is different but they are all helicopters. We can make the system complex and costly...or we can go the other way and still achieve the same safety levels.
Look at the difference in the way we handle type ratings between the UK and the USA....that alone should indict the concept of "typing" helicopters. We use weight as the thresh hold for determing "type" ratings. I would suggest to you that a SPIFR EC-135 is far more sophisticated than a VFR only BV-107 used only for underslung work but the 135 does not require a type rating and the 107 does. In the UK...everything has a type rating and related "type technical" exams and checkrides done by the licensing authority. We on the other hand rely upon the operator to give differences training and checkrides except when we require the "type" rating based upon weight.
The conversion to larger more complex machines should not be based upon previous types flown but be based upon ability and other qualifying experience.
I can assure you, a pilot with a broad reach of experience in 206's will be the better risk for 212 flying than a pilot that has thousands of hours doing the same bus run out across the North Sea in a 332/225. The one will have skills the other does not. Each will be better suited for the kind of flying he has been doing as a result of that experience.
The transition to multi-engine flying is not all that complex when compared to learning the skill sets required for your average utility helicopter pilot flying 206's in moutains, deserts, offshore, ag work, and doing underslung work in all those places.
I would think nothing of hiring a well experienced 206 pilot for an offshore flying job...but not the reverse. There is a mystique (more like an Urban Myth) that suggests working for a large North Sea operator qualifies one as a helicopter pilot. I would suggest it well qualifies one for one sector of the industry.
Lord knows we proved flying 212's in hot and humid conditions in Nigeria was more difficult than flying on the North Sea. Ask your mates who did that routine and get them to describe how many aircraft got over torqued or bent while they got the grasp of 212 flying after being on the North Sea for years.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick Lappos stated:-
"The "battle" between the 225 and the S92 has already been waged. Literally across the board, the 92 has won. Only at Bristow (see a pattern?) has there been any concept that there is a horserace, elsewhere, compliance with newest FAR/JAR has been required by the poor sods who must sit in the things, and the 225 was eliminated at the outset, due to its safety shortfalls."
The S92 didn't initially win. 5 years ago a Coastguard study ruled out the S92 as being unsuitable. Why the change of heart? Can anyone smell something fishy?
"The "battle" between the 225 and the S92 has already been waged. Literally across the board, the 92 has won. Only at Bristow (see a pattern?) has there been any concept that there is a horserace, elsewhere, compliance with newest FAR/JAR has been required by the poor sods who must sit in the things, and the 225 was eliminated at the outset, due to its safety shortfalls."
The S92 didn't initially win. 5 years ago a Coastguard study ruled out the S92 as being unsuitable. Why the change of heart? Can anyone smell something fishy?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS et al
We're getting a bit off the thread here but the subject is an interesting one. I must say that it is slightly worrying to hear that pilots that perform OK in the North Sea end up overtorquing etc in Nigeria. Does that say something about the N Sea training or does it (more likely?) say something about the operating standards in Nigeria. Maybe those with Nigerian overtorquing experience can comment.
On the question of type ratings I can say that, having been a freelancer for 20 years or more that I have experienced many different "qualities" of type qualifying processes. In one company I was subjected to 10 days in the simulator on joining - and that was a type I was already qualified on! (Ok - my original TR was in another country) The worst was just a good read of the Flight Manual and off you go.
Whilst all of my TRs were 'legal' if you ask me which one left me feeling 'good to go' I would have to say that the more comprehensive it was the better I felt.
Now, when I became a QHI it was a three month nightmare course and that will quite rightly be seen as being at one extreme of the quals required to impart skills to the newcomers. But - can it be acceptable for those carrying out TRs to be just 'appointed' with no 'competency-based training beforehand? This is what is happening in some jurisdictions I believe.
Would those who live under such regimes please let us have your opinion about such apparent 'laxness' or just tell me I have it all wrong.
G
On the question of type ratings I can say that, having been a freelancer for 20 years or more that I have experienced many different "qualities" of type qualifying processes. In one company I was subjected to 10 days in the simulator on joining - and that was a type I was already qualified on! (Ok - my original TR was in another country) The worst was just a good read of the Flight Manual and off you go.
Whilst all of my TRs were 'legal' if you ask me which one left me feeling 'good to go' I would have to say that the more comprehensive it was the better I felt.
Now, when I became a QHI it was a three month nightmare course and that will quite rightly be seen as being at one extreme of the quals required to impart skills to the newcomers. But - can it be acceptable for those carrying out TRs to be just 'appointed' with no 'competency-based training beforehand? This is what is happening in some jurisdictions I believe.
Would those who live under such regimes please let us have your opinion about such apparent 'laxness' or just tell me I have it all wrong.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARowl,
I think the reason why the S-92 was not considered 5 years ago is that it was not certified, and therefore was not yet at a reduced risk of demonstration of its promise. Nothing fishy there.
I think the reason why the S-92 was not considered 5 years ago is that it was not certified, and therefore was not yet at a reduced risk of demonstration of its promise. Nothing fishy there.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Blue nowhere
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
I did all of my basic flying in the US, just less than four years of flying 22/44/206 and 500 and I like the system there. I think you missed the point I was trying to make and has led to a bit of an offshoot discussion.
I was saying that the Puma models are more similar than the different models you mentioned so I don't really see a problem if you are rated on one to be rated on the others as long as your differences course gives you enough time to get used to the change. The change from L2 to 225 is a lot easier than L to L2/225.
I have worked the US system and the European system of type ratings and weight catagories, the European system is very expensive and having to revalidate each year is exhobitantly expensive to freelancers (you also have to find a TRE to fly with you), the US system of biannual flight review is easier as you only need a CFI.
In my view if you took the US system and the European systems and took the best of both you could create a system that wouldn't drive pilots nuts all of the time!
I agree with a lot of what you said in the previous post.
So back to the subject at hand...
Lunar
I did all of my basic flying in the US, just less than four years of flying 22/44/206 and 500 and I like the system there. I think you missed the point I was trying to make and has led to a bit of an offshoot discussion.
I was saying that the Puma models are more similar than the different models you mentioned so I don't really see a problem if you are rated on one to be rated on the others as long as your differences course gives you enough time to get used to the change. The change from L2 to 225 is a lot easier than L to L2/225.
I have worked the US system and the European system of type ratings and weight catagories, the European system is very expensive and having to revalidate each year is exhobitantly expensive to freelancers (you also have to find a TRE to fly with you), the US system of biannual flight review is easier as you only need a CFI.
In my view if you took the US system and the European systems and took the best of both you could create a system that wouldn't drive pilots nuts all of the time!
I agree with a lot of what you said in the previous post.
So back to the subject at hand...
Lunar
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
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.
When speed is 150 or above the level of vibration is very high. i hope they will have to come up with a new modern rotorsystem like the 225...
The autopilot has to be improved, in alt,vert speed and airspeed mode 3 cue/4axis its inaccurate.
If you adjust collective when coupled in alt mode it will start climb/descend +- 200`, in vertical-speed mode it will never give what you set on the bug, airspeed mode adjustmens are usually very slow.
Reminds me of an old 332L 4axis Puma...
But Sikorsky`s working on it, but i guess they have a lot of improvements to work on...
I belive and hear the "pilot grin factor" is quite higher in the "grandfather" 225
Best wishes and safe flights in the new year.
When speed is 150 or above the level of vibration is very high. i hope they will have to come up with a new modern rotorsystem like the 225...
The autopilot has to be improved, in alt,vert speed and airspeed mode 3 cue/4axis its inaccurate.
If you adjust collective when coupled in alt mode it will start climb/descend +- 200`, in vertical-speed mode it will never give what you set on the bug, airspeed mode adjustmens are usually very slow.
Reminds me of an old 332L 4axis Puma...
But Sikorsky`s working on it, but i guess they have a lot of improvements to work on...
I belive and hear the "pilot grin factor" is quite higher in the "grandfather" 225
Best wishes and safe flights in the new year.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Thanks I fly 92's
Do you know how much Sea State 6 flotation gear and the anti-icing system adds?
Good luck with your improvements, all new aircraft have problems. Best wishes for the New Year
Nick,
I wanted the weight of a JAR OPS spec S92, which weighs a bit more than your figures.
RI
Do you know how much Sea State 6 flotation gear and the anti-icing system adds?
Good luck with your improvements, all new aircraft have problems. Best wishes for the New Year
Nick,
I wanted the weight of a JAR OPS spec S92, which weighs a bit more than your figures.
RI
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??
running in,
I have emailed the 92 bunch, I will see what detail I can provide on that. I think that I fly 92's data is sound, but certainly includes the company gear that is essential, and almost never included in brochure weights. I don't know what the ss 6 floats will add, the deice completion is probably about 100-150 lbs, but might be in I fly's numbers.
I fly, can you break that weight down a bit finer?
I have emailed the 92 bunch, I will see what detail I can provide on that. I think that I fly 92's data is sound, but certainly includes the company gear that is essential, and almost never included in brochure weights. I don't know what the ss 6 floats will add, the deice completion is probably about 100-150 lbs, but might be in I fly's numbers.
I fly, can you break that weight down a bit finer?
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
What happened to the 26,500 pound MAUW limit that was approved in Oct '05 as reported in the Cougar Article in Vertical magazine?
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
.......................................... (stunned silence!)
I am gobsmacked by the weight quoted by IF92! Surely it can't be right? I posted earlier that the full-fuel payload on the 225 is 4694lbs. If it is as reported by IF92 that makes the full fuel payload on the 92 about 1300lbs less than the 225, (by strange co-incidence, the mirror of what was stated by Nick in an earlier post - which I notice he has not seen fit to edit!) and of course the 225 goes further on full fuel. Is the 92 any better on payload than an L2? (we only have a SAR L2 so I am not sure what the full fuel payload on a crew change one is).
Anyway, thanks IF92 for an honest post on the features of the 92.
I don't think I need to say more....
HC
ps I have some digital video of the 225's screens /autopilot in action. If anyone is interested, and can tell me how to post it, I will do so.
I am gobsmacked by the weight quoted by IF92! Surely it can't be right? I posted earlier that the full-fuel payload on the 225 is 4694lbs. If it is as reported by IF92 that makes the full fuel payload on the 92 about 1300lbs less than the 225, (by strange co-incidence, the mirror of what was stated by Nick in an earlier post - which I notice he has not seen fit to edit!) and of course the 225 goes further on full fuel. Is the 92 any better on payload than an L2? (we only have a SAR L2 so I am not sure what the full fuel payload on a crew change one is).
Anyway, thanks IF92 for an honest post on the features of the 92.
I don't think I need to say more....
HC
ps I have some digital video of the 225's screens /autopilot in action. If anyone is interested, and can tell me how to post it, I will do so.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Nick,
So when you add all the SAR gear, sea tray, twin hoist, FLIR, medical kit, winch-op, winchman/diver, stretchers etc and allow for the fact that the S92 drinks a lot more fuel than the S61, especially in the hover, then the two helicopters will have about the same endurance! The S92 is faster but how much faster without bits falling off?
You said in an earlier post:
"The contract starts in July 2007, plenty of time to complete the delivery of the auto approach/hover system. It has completed its company trials months ago, and behaves flawlessly, as the auto-pilot was designed for SAR from the outset".
From I fly 92's post, the autopilot needs a bit of work before I would want it to trans me down on a dark night to the autohover!
Isn't the sales brochure a bit on the optimistic side, should it be revised?
RI
So when you add all the SAR gear, sea tray, twin hoist, FLIR, medical kit, winch-op, winchman/diver, stretchers etc and allow for the fact that the S92 drinks a lot more fuel than the S61, especially in the hover, then the two helicopters will have about the same endurance! The S92 is faster but how much faster without bits falling off?
You said in an earlier post:
"The contract starts in July 2007, plenty of time to complete the delivery of the auto approach/hover system. It has completed its company trials months ago, and behaves flawlessly, as the auto-pilot was designed for SAR from the outset".
From I fly 92's post, the autopilot needs a bit of work before I would want it to trans me down on a dark night to the autohover!
Isn't the sales brochure a bit on the optimistic side, should it be revised?
RI
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??
running in,
From your snide "falling off the aircraft" remark, I can surely tell you are not interested in any data, just a few more snowballs to throw. Too bad. One might think after building 2,500 helicopters with automatic approach, Sikorsky might know how to build an automatic approach. There are more Sikorsky helos operating today at sea at night than the entire RAF helicopter fleet, BTW.
Should you need any more data, just stand by, the fleet of successful 92's doing SAR will be flying past your window. I had a great chat yesterday with one of the fellows who will take your job, he was happy to do so, especially since you are so progressive and forward thinking. And yea, I too think the 61 is better, and I think the RAF should scrap their jets and buy Avro Lancasters, a proven design.....
From your snide "falling off the aircraft" remark, I can surely tell you are not interested in any data, just a few more snowballs to throw. Too bad. One might think after building 2,500 helicopters with automatic approach, Sikorsky might know how to build an automatic approach. There are more Sikorsky helos operating today at sea at night than the entire RAF helicopter fleet, BTW.
Should you need any more data, just stand by, the fleet of successful 92's doing SAR will be flying past your window. I had a great chat yesterday with one of the fellows who will take your job, he was happy to do so, especially since you are so progressive and forward thinking. And yea, I too think the 61 is better, and I think the RAF should scrap their jets and buy Avro Lancasters, a proven design.....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: shetland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
You all seem to be missing the point,will the end user(the survivor/casualty)be able to depend on an,as yet, unproven SAR platform?
The areas the aircraft is going to be used in have extremes of weather,hurricane force winds,fog ,ice and snow and the very high sea states which requires a good winching platform.
Both bases have notoriously poor service by air/sea which causes problems for spares back up;what spares are required,it takes time and experience in the role to get that sorted,which the 92 does not have.
I am sure,as with all Sikorsky products,that eventually the 92 will become as trusted and admired as the 61;it will be left to the operational staff to do that;we do like a challenge though!
The areas the aircraft is going to be used in have extremes of weather,hurricane force winds,fog ,ice and snow and the very high sea states which requires a good winching platform.
Both bases have notoriously poor service by air/sea which causes problems for spares back up;what spares are required,it takes time and experience in the role to get that sorted,which the 92 does not have.
I am sure,as with all Sikorsky products,that eventually the 92 will become as trusted and admired as the 61;it will be left to the operational staff to do that;we do like a challenge though!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Time please Gentlemen!
Lots of differing views of varying validity. Come July '07, the Coastguard crews are going to get two new aircraft types. I doubt the crews had much say in the choice and will not be able to say "No thanks, we want the 61/Wessex/Whirlwind back" or "can we have a 225 instead?". At the end of the day, the crews will have to make the 92 work. If they expect it work the same as their existing mounts, they are misguided. It would be an interesting and exciting project to work on - I just hope for the sake of the British Public that the team can think out side of the 61 rut. And it is going to take time to work out the best way of skinning the cat with the new cab. Only then can a valid jugement be made on the suitability of the 92 for SAR. Sadly for the 225 lovers, it will be even longer before Eurocopter's offering will be proven (or otherwise), and no, the track record of the L2 doesn't count in my book.
I know I have been very pro 61 in the past and Nick has presented photos of some nice cars that were the dog's knob at the time the 61 was introduced to illustrate how things change. Fair comment (although the 747 is still going strong). The 92 and the 139 are going to oust the 61 from UK SAR in 18 months time. Sad but true but it had to happen. I only hope the 92 can give the same level of serviciability and reliability the 61 has over the years.
Lots of differing views of varying validity. Come July '07, the Coastguard crews are going to get two new aircraft types. I doubt the crews had much say in the choice and will not be able to say "No thanks, we want the 61/Wessex/Whirlwind back" or "can we have a 225 instead?". At the end of the day, the crews will have to make the 92 work. If they expect it work the same as their existing mounts, they are misguided. It would be an interesting and exciting project to work on - I just hope for the sake of the British Public that the team can think out side of the 61 rut. And it is going to take time to work out the best way of skinning the cat with the new cab. Only then can a valid jugement be made on the suitability of the 92 for SAR. Sadly for the 225 lovers, it will be even longer before Eurocopter's offering will be proven (or otherwise), and no, the track record of the L2 doesn't count in my book.
I know I have been very pro 61 in the past and Nick has presented photos of some nice cars that were the dog's knob at the time the 61 was introduced to illustrate how things change. Fair comment (although the 747 is still going strong). The 92 and the 139 are going to oust the 61 from UK SAR in 18 months time. Sad but true but it had to happen. I only hope the 92 can give the same level of serviciability and reliability the 61 has over the years.
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 been trying to get to the bottom of the actual weight of the S92, your posts have been inaccurate to say the least! My comments might seem snide, but if you had come clean at the start I would not have needed to keep chipping away. I fly S92 gave a user's view of the S92's AP, do you disagree with the perception of someone who has got to use the kit every day? I am sure the S92 will become an excellent helicopter in time, but it does have a little way to go still and hopefully will get there by July 2007.
Droopystop
I think you will find that the EC 225 is already in SAR service with the FAF under the name of the 725 and has been for the past year. Although I have not seen any reports on how it is going.
RI
I have been trying to get to the bottom of the actual weight of the S92, your posts have been inaccurate to say the least! My comments might seem snide, but if you had come clean at the start I would not have needed to keep chipping away. I fly S92 gave a user's view of the S92's AP, do you disagree with the perception of someone who has got to use the kit every day? I am sure the S92 will become an excellent helicopter in time, but it does have a little way to go still and hopefully will get there by July 2007.
Droopystop
I think you will find that the EC 225 is already in SAR service with the FAF under the name of the 725 and has been for the past year. Although I have not seen any reports on how it is going.
RI
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
As a 'part time' 92 driver, I can say that the machine I fly has only one problem with the AP - and that is being fixed on the 3.2 software upgrade. I find the FD spot on and we certainly haven't had these 'wandering' problems that IF92 has been experiencing.
The vibes are OK as well, we're getting 0.05 ips at 145kts if I remember correctly.
As far as the thread is concerned, I am sure that the 92 and the 225 could each do the job as required. I do think that the superior cabin height of the 92 will make for a much better work space for the guys in the back.
What I have noticed is that all the Sikorsky team involved in the 92 are very highly motivated.
The vibes are OK as well, we're getting 0.05 ips at 145kts if I remember correctly.
As far as the thread is concerned, I am sure that the 92 and the 225 could each do the job as required. I do think that the superior cabin height of the 92 will make for a much better work space for the guys in the back.
What I have noticed is that all the Sikorsky team involved in the 92 are very highly motivated.
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
IF92s numbers tally with what I've seen; but for an offshore machine. With winch and crew I don't imagine you'll get much change out of 18,500 lb but don't have the spec to hand as I write. His comments about the AP holds also tally exactly with first hand reports I've had though, as reflex says, there is a major software revision out which may address those issues (and others such as power management.)
HC, I'd be interested in seeing those clips as I only had the ground briefing and never got to fly one; can you e-mail them to me? I'll try not to cry into my milk!
HC, I'd be interested in seeing those clips as I only had the ground briefing and never got to fly one; can you e-mail them to me? I'll try not to cry into my milk!