SAR: Search & Rescue Ops [Archive Copy]
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!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
HC
Have the EC225 Floats been certified to 11 tonnes yet? Previously, EC said that while the MTOW was 11 tones, the floats were only certified to 10.4 tonnes and that a re design might be required (at that time)
What was the outcome?
HH
Have the EC225 Floats been certified to 11 tonnes yet? Previously, EC said that while the MTOW was 11 tones, the floats were only certified to 10.4 tonnes and that a re design might be required (at that time)
What was the outcome?
HH
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
I suppose I have to break the silence!!
IF92's figures are OK. I would work on 17820 lb/8085 kg dry operating weight for an offshore (North Sea) S92, with a max gross shortly to be 26500 lb/12020 kg. Best range speed is around 138 TAS which will give around 1300 lb/590 kg per hour burn at 4000 feet ISA. Sea state 6 floats will add around 75 lb/34 kg I believe.
One point being missed in all this is that the North Sea S92s come with full blade deice (fitted and certified by FAA and Transport Canada but not yet by EASA) and with air conditioning. The EC225 operated by Bristow (and the CHC UK ones will be pretty well the same spec) have neither of these options. Not having air con on the 225 saves 125 kg (the 92 is around the same) and not having blade deice saves 187 kg for the blade deice system itself and a further 73 kg for the multipurpose air intakes, which are a requirement for the full icing clearance. Hence there is a total difference in dry weight of 385 kg/850 lb which would have to be added to the 225 to compare like with like. Of course the S92 has no limited icing clearance (and will probably never have one?) so it is not an option to remove the blade deice system.
Does that help to put some facts back in the debate?
Steve
IF92's figures are OK. I would work on 17820 lb/8085 kg dry operating weight for an offshore (North Sea) S92, with a max gross shortly to be 26500 lb/12020 kg. Best range speed is around 138 TAS which will give around 1300 lb/590 kg per hour burn at 4000 feet ISA. Sea state 6 floats will add around 75 lb/34 kg I believe.
One point being missed in all this is that the North Sea S92s come with full blade deice (fitted and certified by FAA and Transport Canada but not yet by EASA) and with air conditioning. The EC225 operated by Bristow (and the CHC UK ones will be pretty well the same spec) have neither of these options. Not having air con on the 225 saves 125 kg (the 92 is around the same) and not having blade deice saves 187 kg for the blade deice system itself and a further 73 kg for the multipurpose air intakes, which are a requirement for the full icing clearance. Hence there is a total difference in dry weight of 385 kg/850 lb which would have to be added to the 225 to compare like with like. Of course the S92 has no limited icing clearance (and will probably never have one?) so it is not an option to remove the blade deice system.
Does that help to put some facts back in the debate?
Steve
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Oh my! Cats are in amongst the piegons now!
It would appear by adding 385kgs to the 225 to match apples to apples the 225 actually has a lower payload, by adjusting the fuel flow numbers to the latest given....the 92 has a lower fuel burn and with the larger fuel capacity also the greater range. Vibration seems not to be a problem as thought and the 92 actually has the aircon and de-icing. Speeds in the cruise....anyone flying the 225 care to supply us those numbers...speed, fuel burn...
Are we back to the windows again?
It would appear by adding 385kgs to the 225 to match apples to apples the 225 actually has a lower payload, by adjusting the fuel flow numbers to the latest given....the 92 has a lower fuel burn and with the larger fuel capacity also the greater range. Vibration seems not to be a problem as thought and the 92 actually has the aircon and de-icing. Speeds in the cruise....anyone flying the 225 care to supply us those numbers...speed, fuel burn...
Are we back to the windows again?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Assuming that the 225/92 de-icing equipment and aircon weigh the same, then based on the figures provided by HC, steve-oc and IF92s, my calculations show that the full-fuel payload of the EC225 would be 3845lbs and that of the S92 would be 3580lbs.
My colleagues tell me that at 4000ft ISA, at 145kts TAS, the fuel consumption of the 225 is about 1350lbs/hour.
Them apples are not looking too bad at all!
My colleagues tell me that at 4000ft ISA, at 145kts TAS, the fuel consumption of the 225 is about 1350lbs/hour.
Them apples are not looking too bad at all!