Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

SAR: Search & Rescue Ops [Archive Copy]

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

SAR: Search & Rescue Ops [Archive Copy]

Old 8th Feb 2006, 19:38
  #721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
It never ceases to amaze me how poorly informed our wonderful armed forces are about the world outwith their cozy cuccoon.

Crabette,
If you were lucky enough (and with the attitude you display here, luck will have a lot to do with your success in civvy street SAR) to get a job, then you will look back on the words you have posted here and realise how much 'ollocks you have spouted.
Crashondeck is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2006, 20:55
  #722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
"Hard to see a civvy contractor allowing their most expensive mechanical asset to grub about the hills in the middle of the night."

Sorry - to clarify that, I stress the contractor, not the lack of aircrew willing.

Coastie drivers - what do your rules say about overland SAR?

CoD - Am I missing something?

SB
scottishbeefer is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2006, 22:03
  #723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scotch Land
Posts: 35
Devil

SB
The coasties do go inland, it's secondary to their primary tasking. No limitations on what they do and they do a good job at it when they do. They have to train @ Safe single engine limits but no restriction on a SAR mission...this is where performance pops up. The 61 pretty much has the equivalent to the Mk1 Gnome, tops out @103.4NG and the Tq's are in 'watch your job' territory @ 103% matched twin. For a machine that starts out @ an average 16200lbs ZFW that doesn't give it much performance in hand. Needs a Blackhawk for the hills. Oh, the 92 is a close family member!
CoD
Which bits are not to your liking?? You'd like to say all of it but sadly I doubt that you can honestly. I have some very sound inside knowledge I'm sure that SARowl on the South Coast will agree in time that it's pointless ranting over the foul injustice of ousting Bristows for a yet 'unproven' bunch of cabs. What was the 61 @ the start of it's career 4 DECADES ago?
Crabette is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2006, 08:03
  #724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Crabette.

Nothing in particular but generally. This is a public forum and maybe not a wise (or indeed a legal) place for someone with large amounts of inside information on a contract award to be hanging their thoughts. It is a small world. Ask Angelonawire.
Crashondeck is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2006, 10:24
  #725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: PLANET ZOG
Posts: 304
CoD.
Totally agree. Crabette seems to think he/she? has more information than the rest of us!
Crabette.
One of the original posts asked the question ' what about the Bristow guys doing the job now, are they going to transfer across?' or words to that effect. Perhaps you, with your superior inside information, would care to enlighten the rest of us pondlife. (Which appears to be your opinion of the rest of the SAR world.) Just how did we manage before you came along?? I am so grateful to God for creating you!
3D CAM is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2006, 12:53
  #726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 6
Crabette asked :- What was the 61 @ the start of it's career 4 DECADES ago?
Answer :- It was a public transport aircraft that proved its worth before being used for SAR.
arge2 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2006, 20:12
  #727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
I think there may be something to Running in's post:

"We know that the MOD had a major say in the aircraft choice for the new MCA contract. By filling in the gap between Wattisham and Culdrose with small MCA types they ensure that the MOD aircraft will get called to any larger incidents. If S92s had gone into Lee and Portland it would have shown up the obsolescent Sea King with their lower speed and payload.
We know that the MOD are fighting a rearguard action to keep a foothold in SAR, so perhaps they have rubber d***ed the MCA to ensure that they get an increased share of the S Coast action running up to 2012!"

The MOD are struggling to keep their old tired and generally unserviceable Sea King fleet going - some doubt if they will last until 2012. By "helpfully" suggesting that the MCA put small helicopters on the S Coast they will keep Culdrose and Wattisham to the fore. Having S92s in Lee would have meant a large reduction in the MOD medal count and losing jobs to the civvies.

The RAF have committed similar stunts before. When they wrestled control of the RN's Buccaneers and Phantoms (allegedly) they convinced the various ministers and civil servants by presenting a map that showed how land based aircraft could cover all the UK interests worldwide. In order to make the air cover fit the requirements they moved Australia on the map by several hundred miles - hey presto they could do the job worldwide and the RN lost its carriers. Convincing the MCA that the A 139 is a good SAR helicopter is small beer compared to that!
Dillon the dog is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2006, 08:24
  #728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
All this 139/61/SAR Kit bashing is pointless. In the past the MCA have gone out to reputable helicopter operators with a set of requirements. The operators have come back with bids that contain their optimum solution to those requirements. In other words, the DfT/MCA get what they ask for. So the question is who advised the DfT on what they should ask for and who advised them on which bid was best for the latest contract? What is the quality of that advice? As D the D has already pointed out, was the advice free from alterior motives? Aparently a key part of the new contract that was approved by the DfT, has been rejected by the MCA. It seems that the new contractor ticked all the boxes on the matter in the contract bid, ie did what was asked of them. But it seems that the DfT and their advisors have not asked the MCA what was needed. I am not interested in who gets what contract with what kit. Just as long as the DfT have managed to ask for what is needed and expected.
Crashondeck is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2006, 20:09
  #729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Dillon

The 'King fleet is certainly not "generally unserviceable". We're light years ahead of the Merlin boys in that respect. The issue is in the longer term.

Culdrose will endure as the unit has more in its portfolio than just SAR. If ever a unit was ripe for a look under the microscope it's Wattisham, consistently the lowest score on the jobs tote, year in, year out.

Concur your comments re RAF moving Oz! Naughty bu**ers.

There's no rearguard MOD action to keep SAR, the pros/cons are unchanged, ie PR/boys getting crunchy jobs & experience vs cost/sustainability - I grant you the Treasury has a massive say but the MOD is spread thin and has lots of irons in fires - SAR is way, way down the ladder of importance, despite the good it does. Understandable objectively, but a shame to those of us with a vested interest who know what a great job the boys do (Civ's included of course!).

SB
scottishbeefer is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 07:26
  #730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
So does anyone know much about the 139?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210285

Lets hope that the MOD/MCA have all the facts
Dillon the dog is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 08:57
  #731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,835
So why did the S61 form Lee get called ahead of the Sea King from Chiv for the sinking tanker in the channel 2 weeks ago? And why did it take an hour to get 6 people off the boat before deciding that the rest would be better recovered by climbing down a rope ladder (from a boat listing at 30 degrees and worsening) and into the Lifeboat which sustained bow damage as it successfully and very skilfully manoeuvred under the overhang and into the vessel. And why was this plan pursued when the Chiv Sea King was hovering, waiting for an opportunity to quickly recover the remaining crewmembers?
Brixham CG were running the job - is that why they requested Lee first? The MCA are allowed to task their own assets within 30 nm of their location without asking ARCC - is that what happened here?
Could it possibly be because the S61 was not prepared to sit committed in the hover? The crewmembers of the vessel were far more likely to get hurt scrambling down a ladder and jumping into a pitching lifeboat.

BTW anyone who knew even a little bit about UK SAR would know that the RAF SK fleet has been introducing FLIR (a misnomer since it is in a turret that has a 360 degree view) over the last 2 years. And that is to all the Sea Kings not just 2 or 3 like Bristows.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 12:14
  #732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
And that is to all the Sea Kings not just 2 or 3 like Bristows.
Not sure what you're implying there but all the CG S61s have FLIR fitted for the role.

The rest sounds like a p***ed off crew who got called second! Let's face it the RAF can hardly call foul on that when their aircraft are regularly performing taskings outside their respective patches! All in all a little bit off subject.

And to Dillion the Dog nobody on the CG units know much about the A139 or the S92 because nobody has given them any accurate information about the aircraft. As usual the guys on the front line were never consulted before the choice was made. The units are all very in the dark about what is happening with the aircraft and everything else... and the clock is running down!
Night Watchman is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 13:25
  #733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 3
Night Watchman

Does no one on the GC units have access to Google then?

As for consulting the 'front line' Sikorsky did that re the S92 nearly 10 years ago, and took note of the response.
wheels58 is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 15:00
  #734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Does no one on the GC units have access to Google then?
I was talking about accurate information not the glossy sales talk! The most accurate performance, handling, serviceability and reliability information on the S92 has come from this forum and as for the A139 well nobody knows!

As for consulting the 'front line' Sikorsky did that re the S92 nearly 10 years ago, and took note of the response.
Says it all really. It was all done 10 years ago and anyway who said I was referring to Sikorsky?
Night Watchman is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 15:09
  #735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Angry

Night Watchman
What you forgot to add is that the RAF have only had FLIR installed over the last two years, despite trying to get it since the early 80's! Bristow has had FLIR fitted on their cabs since almost the start of the MCA contracts, I believe?


What I find disappointing from [email protected] and crabette is that they both display a very biased opinion against Bristow. They both appear to have a long-held opinion that Bristow is and has never been capable of doing SAR "properly", and they even appear to like the fact that CHC are now going to do it. Do they think that another civil operator will do the job differently?

There has always been in the RAF a certain disliking of Bristow doing SAR ever since that company started with the S61 at Sumburgh. Most of the comments that have been made have been totally unjustified and unsubstantiated. Perhaps if they came out of their little fox-holes occasionally and took a better look at the world, they would see that Bristow has performed a very professional service over the years. At the start the crews were mainly ex-military anyway (including ex-RAF!), but today there are many straight-through civil SAR pilots and crewmen. They are as good as their military colleagues, and they don't tend to have as biased an opinion as some!

I, for one, am tired of the bickering going on by the "crab/ettes". They seem very pro-CHC almost as if they were involved in some way with the recent awarding of the new SAR contracts for the MCA. Do they not realise that the crews who will man the new MCA aircraft will be the ex-Bristow ones anyway at the start? These guys will be as professional for CHC as they will have been for the Bristow. How good the management of the new operations will be will only be seen once CHC is running things. That debate will have to wait until next year!
JKnife is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 15:14
  #736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Crab,

Why is it whenever a SAR topic comes out you have to start a dick swinging contest? All it achieves is a demonstration of your ingnorance to Coastguard SAR.
Crashondeck is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 16:36
  #737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,835
Nightwatchman - so when an S61 goes U/S and another is flown in to replace it because the CG don't have a 2nd standby, will that aircraft be of full SAR spec with FLIR et al? I have very reliable sources that tell me otherwise. All the RAF mk 3 and 3As have FLIR fitted and the turret can be changed from aircraft to aircraft very swiftly. Much the same as our radar is far superior to the 'cloud and clunk' one fitted to the S61 (despite not being able to see ahead I grant you) our FLIR/MSS is the latest spec QWIP device with autoscan facility - what is actually on the 61? It has taken 20 years to get it but it has been worth the wait - finally those with their fingers on the purse strings have started to realise what a valuable asset RAF SAR is.
Those not so well informed, assume that SAR is SAR and whoever does it, does it the same way and to the same standard - you show me the CG training hours dedicated to maintaining and improving capability and I will show you the RAFs. Who was it who nearly killed a winchman and survivor recently when the pilot lost references over a straightforward night deck? Ask angelonawire, he will tell you.
I think I speak for crabette as well when I say that I hope that the CHC provision of SAR will be far better than Bristows, and if so could well be due to the amount of involvement the RAF had in the process. Hopefully CHC management will have a much more long-term view and not spend their time trying to squeeze the last pound of profit from the contract by wheedling around clauses and sub-clauses with their lawyers.
I have had experience of Bristows contract management and quality of service was the last consideration, way behind meeting the 'terms' of the contract and paying their hard working staff the least amount possible.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 17:10
  #738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
[email protected]
My my, you are a true Bristow hater and the anti Bristow sentiment in your reply has somewhat reduced your posting to the equivalent of a drunk ranting at the bar. (Cheers, hic!)

As for your reliable source (probably barman wanting you to leave) who told you that the CG don't have a standby aircraft well that's completely untrue. Lee, Sumburgh and Stornoway all have standby aircraft. Oh, and guess what, the FLIR is transferred to the standby aircraft in the same time it takes you to transfer yours!

It's interesting to hear you banging on about the RAF spec now you have FLIR because before, when you didn't, the silence was deafening!

You accuse Bristow of providing a poor quality of service and yet they have provided FLIR for 20 years and yet the RAF haven't. Bit of a flaw in your argument old chap (have a double!). Incidentally Bristow were going to upgrade the FLIR in the event of them retaining the contract obviously that hasn't happened - much to the obvious delight of you and many on here.

The rest of your posting is not worth answering because you are obviously a bigot which makes it all a bit of a waste of time.

Never mind. (One for the road Sir?)

NW
PS Note for your diary - Jul 07 I must stop hating Bristow and start hating CHC. They're all civilians doing SAR and not as perfect as me.
Night Watchman is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 17:31
  #739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: PLANET ZOG
Posts: 304
Night Watchman.
Well said sir!!!
3D CAM is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2006, 18:16
  #740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Unbelievable. Glass house residents throwing stones.

20 years to get FLIR.

In 18 months time a new contractor will be introducing two new aircraft types, new FLIR, new winches, new SAR kit and new operating manual. State of the art. PFI at its best? Hope so. And the 90 kt Sea King retires when? 2015? Soon the only weapon in your amoury Crab, will be NVG, and only because the MCA don't want it (I can't believe why, especially now that a number of Police forces are introducing NVG in the next couple of years).

Finally, I think it inappropriate you chastise crews on the basis of incidents for which you cannot know the whole story, just in same way it's inappropriate to speculate about aircraft crashes on this forum.
Crashondeck is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.