UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
If it was good enough for Wellington,Nick....it was good enough!
When did the 61 evolve into a SAR configuration? Did it evolve over many years....with updates and improvements as techology improved? Would not any other aircraft have to do the same morphing to become a "SAR" bird?
Is there exactly one unique SAR configuration?
When did the 61 evolve into a SAR configuration? Did it evolve over many years....with updates and improvements as techology improved? Would not any other aircraft have to do the same morphing to become a "SAR" bird?
Is there exactly one unique SAR configuration?
Special25, I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that the AB139 is not even flying yet!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
There are as many SAR configurations as there are Scotch whiskies.
The most prolific dedicated SAR bird is the USAF HH-60, with about 105 in service, I think. They share nothing in common with the S-61 and SARowl's list except the name on the pedals, but they can penetrate 350 miles of contested airspace, pick up a downed pilot and fly back, all in pitch black conditions. They have rescued crewmen in the middle of the Atlantic, 850 NM from shore, in December, at night, in sleet and iceing conditions.
I'll bet those guys could build a list of the "best" SAR aircraft, too.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=107
There are as many SAR configurations as there are Scotch whiskies.
The most prolific dedicated SAR bird is the USAF HH-60, with about 105 in service, I think. They share nothing in common with the S-61 and SARowl's list except the name on the pedals, but they can penetrate 350 miles of contested airspace, pick up a downed pilot and fly back, all in pitch black conditions. They have rescued crewmen in the middle of the Atlantic, 850 NM from shore, in December, at night, in sleet and iceing conditions.
I'll bet those guys could build a list of the "best" SAR aircraft, too.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=107
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless:
The S61 had been in service for many years before it was considered for the SAR role. Most of the procedures, equipment fit and operating data were based on its near cousin, the Sea King. Therefore, the S61 was not an 'out of the box' SAR machine, some thought and experience had gone into the decision.
Nick Lappos:
Everything you say about the 'venerable S61' is true. It is old, the performance is poor and its avionics fit is antiquated. But, as you will see from my reply to SASless - see above - some thought and experience went into its selection. Some operating data has been gathered about the S92, the EH101 and the EC225, the one that really concerns me is the AB139. Reading some of the flight test histories available on the net - admittedly hearsay - there seems to be a few problems with this airframe. Also, is it big enough, can it carry the kit and the personnel?
The S61 had been in service for many years before it was considered for the SAR role. Most of the procedures, equipment fit and operating data were based on its near cousin, the Sea King. Therefore, the S61 was not an 'out of the box' SAR machine, some thought and experience had gone into the decision.
Nick Lappos:
Everything you say about the 'venerable S61' is true. It is old, the performance is poor and its avionics fit is antiquated. But, as you will see from my reply to SASless - see above - some thought and experience went into its selection. Some operating data has been gathered about the S92, the EH101 and the EC225, the one that really concerns me is the AB139. Reading some of the flight test histories available on the net - admittedly hearsay - there seems to be a few problems with this airframe. Also, is it big enough, can it carry the kit and the personnel?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARowl,
Thanks for the clarification, I was wondering what your main point is, since the S-92 was designed as a replacement for the S-61, and shares most of the size attributes directly, and some of the others indirectly.
It is interesting to see what happens when a set of requirements does not include some economics. In cars, one ends up with the US dilemma, where millions of ridiculous SUV's clog the highways, most driven by 120 lb moms.
If economics were factored into you SAR list, the choices might show that a smaller cheaper bird in the mix could handle some of the missions.
Thanks for the clarification, I was wondering what your main point is, since the S-92 was designed as a replacement for the S-61, and shares most of the size attributes directly, and some of the others indirectly.
It is interesting to see what happens when a set of requirements does not include some economics. In cars, one ends up with the US dilemma, where millions of ridiculous SUV's clog the highways, most driven by 120 lb moms.
If economics were factored into you SAR list, the choices might show that a smaller cheaper bird in the mix could handle some of the missions.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Horses for courses indeed. The HK GFS used to have a mix of SAR equipped S-76A++ and S-70 Blackhawks.
The CAD didn't like the S-70 being used for offshore work because they were not equipped with floats and had no automatics and amazingly, were put on a "Permit to fly". However, the Blacky had far more power, an NVG compatible cockpit and they were more stable in the hover.
The dual-qualified captains were given the choice of aircraft type for most SAR missions. Given that choice, certainly over land by night, I took the Blackhawk every time.
The CAD didn't like the S-70 being used for offshore work because they were not equipped with floats and had no automatics and amazingly, were put on a "Permit to fly". However, the Blacky had far more power, an NVG compatible cockpit and they were more stable in the hover.
The dual-qualified captains were given the choice of aircraft type for most SAR missions. Given that choice, certainly over land by night, I took the Blackhawk every time.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think a 'pick 'n mix' approach to SAR aircraft type is the correct answer. I appreciate that on paper it makes economic sense, but there is economy in uniformity. One logistics chain instead of two, one training empire, etc... Also manning can be a problem, an S61 pilot can move from one base to another, whereas an AB139 pilot can't cover an S92 base and vice versa.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARowl,
And what is that symmetry worth in pounds/dollars? Theory of uniformity is nice, but someone has to pay the bills. When a person who has no fiscal skin in the game lists hard, frozen requirements, he is usually standing for the biggest, most expensive solution.
Let me ask it the way it is really played:
Would you rather have 6 superwonderful fun machines, or 9 in a mixed fleet? For a fixed initial/operating dollar, which gives the most area covered, and least response time, and the most lives saved?
When someone starts listing requirements, and doesn't understand that the equation is fewer big ones or more smaller ones, that person is usually not invited to the table for round 2 of the decision making cycle. Don't get me wrong, my alma mater makes the BIG one, so I would perhaps think otherwise.
And what is that symmetry worth in pounds/dollars? Theory of uniformity is nice, but someone has to pay the bills. When a person who has no fiscal skin in the game lists hard, frozen requirements, he is usually standing for the biggest, most expensive solution.
Let me ask it the way it is really played:
Would you rather have 6 superwonderful fun machines, or 9 in a mixed fleet? For a fixed initial/operating dollar, which gives the most area covered, and least response time, and the most lives saved?
When someone starts listing requirements, and doesn't understand that the equation is fewer big ones or more smaller ones, that person is usually not invited to the table for round 2 of the decision making cycle. Don't get me wrong, my alma mater makes the BIG one, so I would perhaps think otherwise.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Salisbury UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having operated for both companies in the SAR role, I reckon there's not much to choose between operators.
Regarding choice of aircraft, the S-61 is an old airframe, and surely it is time to move on. Indeed Sikorsky were looking to the Civil SAR market during development. I clearly remember about 10 years ago being handed a questionnaire sent out by Sikorsky asking UK Coastguard crews what they wanted from an SAR cab. So even back then Sikorsky were keen to develop the SAR market. It's a shame for Bristows that they didn't pusrue the S-92 which even 10 years ago looked great.
All the best to the SAR crews for the Christmas and the future.
Regarding choice of aircraft, the S-61 is an old airframe, and surely it is time to move on. Indeed Sikorsky were looking to the Civil SAR market during development. I clearly remember about 10 years ago being handed a questionnaire sent out by Sikorsky asking UK Coastguard crews what they wanted from an SAR cab. So even back then Sikorsky were keen to develop the SAR market. It's a shame for Bristows that they didn't pusrue the S-92 which even 10 years ago looked great.
All the best to the SAR crews for the Christmas and the future.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently CHC Scotia in Aberdeen are preparing two S61's with the LN501 Auto Hover system in readiness of taking over the Coastguard contract.
What happened to the S92's???
Have they been dropped already????
What happened to the S92's???
Have they been dropped already????
I believe, even Scotia are realistic enough to know that they aren't going to have SAR equipped S-92' s ready for the take-over of the contract, and have had agreement to use S-61's for the first year. - So, same bases, same crews (probably), same aircraft in the same colour scheme - Not much change really !
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The only reason why they might not all be ready at that time is that the line is quite sold out for a few years (but CHC has several slots in there, I have no reason to believe that they need not start out with 92's).
The only reason why they might not all be ready at that time is that the line is quite sold out for a few years (but CHC has several slots in there, I have no reason to believe that they need not start out with 92's).
Last edited by NickLappos; 31st Dec 2005 at 12:34.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: THE MANGROVE SWAMPS (RETIRED)
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Nick,
I wish Alan Bristow (as opposed to the guy using the name Alan Bristow - which I presume is a wind-up?!) would also contribute to PPRuNe occasionally - there's a guy wit a fantastic knowledge of the history of this industry.
I worked for both Bristow and CHC during my time and I think you're right. Bristow used to be the really innovative companny, but in the years since the 'Old Man' sold up they have let companies like CHC take over that role. Good luck to CHC with the contract. Whoever does it, one thing that won't change is that the crews from whichever company will do it in a thoroughly professional and dedicated manner.
I also agree with your ideas of having different helicopters for different bases. Back in the very old days where the RN and RAF covered all the SAR in UK, they used a mix of Wessex and Whirlwind at bases depending whether it was expected that rescues would be longer or shorter range. RAF Manson had the Whirlwind (S55 with Gnome gas turbine engine, for our younger readers!!) for many years. Does anyone have any information as to what the useful radius of action with an SAR loiter time is for the S92 and A139?
Mama
I wish Alan Bristow (as opposed to the guy using the name Alan Bristow - which I presume is a wind-up?!) would also contribute to PPRuNe occasionally - there's a guy wit a fantastic knowledge of the history of this industry.
I worked for both Bristow and CHC during my time and I think you're right. Bristow used to be the really innovative companny, but in the years since the 'Old Man' sold up they have let companies like CHC take over that role. Good luck to CHC with the contract. Whoever does it, one thing that won't change is that the crews from whichever company will do it in a thoroughly professional and dedicated manner.
I also agree with your ideas of having different helicopters for different bases. Back in the very old days where the RN and RAF covered all the SAR in UK, they used a mix of Wessex and Whirlwind at bases depending whether it was expected that rescues would be longer or shorter range. RAF Manson had the Whirlwind (S55 with Gnome gas turbine engine, for our younger readers!!) for many years. Does anyone have any information as to what the useful radius of action with an SAR loiter time is for the S92 and A139?
Mama
Are not the SAR contract submittals public information? If so, why not do a research effort and compare the submittals that were used to make the determination?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cdn Driver,
Here is the tech brochure, with detailed weights and performance. I believe the delivered offshore birds weigh about 450 lbs more than the brochure, due to additional optional equipment and gear. Good idea to add that much tp the SAR to be conservative.
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,3038,827,00.pdf
Page 12 has a good SAR radius chart, about 370 NM radius of action.
Here is the tech brochure, with detailed weights and performance. I believe the delivered offshore birds weigh about 450 lbs more than the brochure, due to additional optional equipment and gear. Good idea to add that much tp the SAR to be conservative.
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,3038,827,00.pdf
Page 12 has a good SAR radius chart, about 370 NM radius of action.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
This brochure has been on the Sikorsky website for a few years now and certainly before production aircraft hit the offshore world.
How does it tie-up with the flight manual? Can you post actual FM data and graphs here and not the sales brochure, we can make up our own mind then?
Do you have the extra weights for the Sea State 6 flotation gear, reinforced cabin floor, de-iced blades, FLIR, hoists etc? Most aircraft weigh more than the sales brochure claim, lets hope the S92 does not.
Thanks in anticipation
RI
This brochure has been on the Sikorsky website for a few years now and certainly before production aircraft hit the offshore world.
How does it tie-up with the flight manual? Can you post actual FM data and graphs here and not the sales brochure, we can make up our own mind then?
Do you have the extra weights for the Sea State 6 flotation gear, reinforced cabin floor, de-iced blades, FLIR, hoists etc? Most aircraft weigh more than the sales brochure claim, lets hope the S92 does not.
Thanks in anticipation
RI
Why should the 92 not weigh more in service than planned? Every helicopter ever built has had that problem....everyone!
How much did the APS weight of the 61 increase over the years due to mods....paint....dirt....grease....and the like?
Sounds like a fair question on the surface but I detect a hidden agenda lurkiing there.
How much did the APS weight of the 61 increase over the years due to mods....paint....dirt....grease....and the like?
Sounds like a fair question on the surface but I detect a hidden agenda lurkiing there.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASLess
I don't know the weight of the S92, which is why I asked. What is hidden about that?
If Nick can post any FAA approved data that would shut up the detractors. Perhaps Helicomparitor can post actual data about the EC 225 and we can compare facts, not rumours!
RI
I don't know the weight of the S92, which is why I asked. What is hidden about that?
If Nick can post any FAA approved data that would shut up the detractors. Perhaps Helicomparitor can post actual data about the EC 225 and we can compare facts, not rumours!
RI
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
running in,
I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that.
This includes most of the goodies you list, at least as one pro offshore outfit spec'd it. the nose to nose between a 225 and an S92 is no contest, the S-92 has about 1300 lbs more payload, or 130 NM more range, depending on how you want to cash in the extra performance. The aircraft look as if they are within 600 lbs if you use the 225 brochure, but they do not add the weight of the crashworthiness they have as a yet uundesigned "option."
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.
I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that.
This includes most of the goodies you list, at least as one pro offshore outfit spec'd it. the nose to nose between a 225 and an S92 is no contest, the S-92 has about 1300 lbs more payload, or 130 NM more range, depending on how you want to cash in the extra performance. The aircraft look as if they are within 600 lbs if you use the 225 brochure, but they do not add the weight of the crashworthiness they have as a yet uundesigned "option."
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.