UK SAR First S-92
I was led to believe that the SAR S-92 has a Mark on Target Approach so the SAR AFCS should bring you into a 50 ft hover 150 ft downwind and to the left of your target.
Although you will lose the target in the turn, the FLIR can be locked on to the target and should I believe display on any of the MFD’s and cabin consul operators station.
Out of interest, I am also told that the hoist operator’s pendant will also have the ability to slew the aircraft on a dual lat/long axis 3 feet at a time, giving those in the cockpit a chance to brush up on there uckers.
Although you will lose the target in the turn, the FLIR can be locked on to the target and should I believe display on any of the MFD’s and cabin consul operators station.
Out of interest, I am also told that the hoist operator’s pendant will also have the ability to slew the aircraft on a dual lat/long axis 3 feet at a time, giving those in the cockpit a chance to brush up on there uckers.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the problem with having a radar that only looks forward is that you can only do night/IMC letdowns to cliffs/boats etc that are ahead of you. Try doing a letdown into a bay with a 40kt onshore wind"
Crab, we do all of the above with a forward looking radar and have been doing so for many years without any problem. Just because the rest of the world doesn't have the Military 360 radar (ARI 5955?) doesn't mean there is only one way to skin a cat.
Kind regards
mustfly1
Crab, we do all of the above with a forward looking radar and have been doing so for many years without any problem. Just because the rest of the world doesn't have the Military 360 radar (ARI 5955?) doesn't mean there is only one way to skin a cat.
Kind regards
mustfly1
Mustfly - so you let down and end up in the hover into the 40kt wind but not visual with the coast - how do you safely manoeuvre to the cliffs? In our old Sea King we can close to minimum radar range (75 yards) in any direction except 15 degrees either side of the nose thus maintaining an escape heading away from land.
Decks - your 1000 euro moving map display won't show radar targets even if it is linked to the radar, unless they are in front of you. Maouevering at low level (200') in congested shipping lanes IMC/night needs 360 information or you might just turn and bump into a container carrier or tanker that has superstructure above 200'amsl. Surely GPS isn't certified for IMC use as the only navaid which is why we still have VOR DME etc for overland stuff.
In the military we have a clear mandate to operate IMC below safety altitude because we have exemptions from the ANO and a specific clearance in our JSP to do so - where is the similar mandate for doing it in an S61?
It's all well and good having an auto letdown to a FLIR target facility but it doesn't work very well in cloud and rain.
Decks - your 1000 euro moving map display won't show radar targets even if it is linked to the radar, unless they are in front of you. Maouevering at low level (200') in congested shipping lanes IMC/night needs 360 information or you might just turn and bump into a container carrier or tanker that has superstructure above 200'amsl. Surely GPS isn't certified for IMC use as the only navaid which is why we still have VOR DME etc for overland stuff.
In the military we have a clear mandate to operate IMC below safety altitude because we have exemptions from the ANO and a specific clearance in our JSP to do so - where is the similar mandate for doing it in an S61?
It's all well and good having an auto letdown to a FLIR target facility but it doesn't work very well in cloud and rain.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hilife,
The 92 SAR controls do have a Mark on Top mode, as well as the FMS lat long, FLIR and radar modes of setting the hover point prior to the approach.
Here is a press release that discusses it:
http://www.sikorsky.com/news_archive...ID7409,00.html
Regarding Crab's concerns about the need for 360 radar, I would have imagined this would be in the requirements if it was an operational necessity. There is no reason why such a radar couldn't be fitted onto the 92, or any other likely SAR candidate (except that the 360 naval radar costs about as much as the entire crew's yearly salaries.)
The 92 SAR controls do have a Mark on Top mode, as well as the FMS lat long, FLIR and radar modes of setting the hover point prior to the approach.
Here is a press release that discusses it:
http://www.sikorsky.com/news_archive...ID7409,00.html
Regarding Crab's concerns about the need for 360 radar, I would have imagined this would be in the requirements if it was an operational necessity. There is no reason why such a radar couldn't be fitted onto the 92, or any other likely SAR candidate (except that the 360 naval radar costs about as much as the entire crew's yearly salaries.)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor old crab, he's desperately tring to find something wrong with the nice shinny new SAR helicopter which is going to be operated by the civilian SAR pilots he hates so much. 
Never mind crab, keep trying.... It keeps me amused!!
NW
Oh and by the way, the coupled SAR S61 can operate to 40' in IMC - CAA approved.
Never mind crab, keep trying.... It keeps me amused!!
NW
Oh and by the way, the coupled SAR S61 can operate to 40' in IMC - CAA approved.
Night Watchman - either you don't understand the difference between flying below MSA IMC and using the autopilot to let you down or you are being deliberately obtuse. It's not coupled until you engage the Trans Down mode, until that point you are simply using the ASE element of the autopilot for stabilisation and heading hold - that is like normal cruising flight - do the CAA allow that below MSA IMC?
Nick - SAR(H) are supposedly running the award of contracts and will be instrumental in deciding the numbers of military/civilian crews after 2012; right at the beginning of the project it was stated that there would be no loss of capability when the new contract is awarded. The present interim contract complies with this since the S61s didn't have NVG or a 360 (ish) radar but...in 2012, if those nice civilian crews are going to take over military SAR then the aircraft will have to have a different spec. Unless of course some bean counter who doesn't understand SAR decides that 'less capability means less money and anyway it's people's own fault if they get themselves into trouble in bad weather or at night' and reneges on the deal.
I would love to have a shiny new S92 to fly but only if it lets me do my job properly.
Nick - SAR(H) are supposedly running the award of contracts and will be instrumental in deciding the numbers of military/civilian crews after 2012; right at the beginning of the project it was stated that there would be no loss of capability when the new contract is awarded. The present interim contract complies with this since the S61s didn't have NVG or a 360 (ish) radar but...in 2012, if those nice civilian crews are going to take over military SAR then the aircraft will have to have a different spec. Unless of course some bean counter who doesn't understand SAR decides that 'less capability means less money and anyway it's people's own fault if they get themselves into trouble in bad weather or at night' and reneges on the deal.
I would love to have a shiny new S92 to fly but only if it lets me do my job properly.
Crab.
You really must get it into your head that "beancounters" are exactly the people who are going to decide who gets the harmonisation contract! Nothing you or I say will hold any sway with them whatsoever. Money, or the lack of it, wins every time.
The tender for the interim contract, ably put together by "Crabette"?? and others who know far more about SAR than any of the people in civvy street doing it, asked for lots of things that the S61 does not have, 360 degree radar being one of them! As you rightly point out, neither the S92 nor the AW139 has it????? That tells a story in itself!
When the time comes, are you going to be coming to fly with us nasty civvies or are you going to transfer to Support Helicopters and go on their travels, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.??
Do not look with too much contempt at us. We, well most of us, came down the same road as you!
You really must get it into your head that "beancounters" are exactly the people who are going to decide who gets the harmonisation contract! Nothing you or I say will hold any sway with them whatsoever. Money, or the lack of it, wins every time.
The tender for the interim contract, ably put together by "Crabette"?? and others who know far more about SAR than any of the people in civvy street doing it, asked for lots of things that the S61 does not have, 360 degree radar being one of them! As you rightly point out, neither the S92 nor the AW139 has it????? That tells a story in itself!
When the time comes, are you going to be coming to fly with us nasty civvies or are you going to transfer to Support Helicopters and go on their travels, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.??
Do not look with too much contempt at us. We, well most of us, came down the same road as you!
3D - I certainly do not look with contempt at civvy SAR, only with concern that a hard-won capability will be squandered because those that make the decisions don't understand the issues involved. We used to manage quite well with the Whirlwind and the Wessex but I don't think we should go back to them because they were cheap to run.
At my age, caught in the boarding school trap, I guess I will have to keep taking the Queen's shilling and do what I'm told until pension time (only 9 years to go) so whatever happens to SAR is unlikely to involve me.
However, if I do change sides can I be on Seaside Rescue?
At my age, caught in the boarding school trap, I guess I will have to keep taking the Queen's shilling and do what I'm told until pension time (only 9 years to go) so whatever happens to SAR is unlikely to involve me.
However, if I do change sides can I be on Seaside Rescue?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3D and Crab,
The radar is only an issue to the customer, not the manufacturers, since Sikorsky has installed only about 600 of them, and the technical leap is not an impressive one to do it on a 92 sized machine, especially one with a flat belly and retractable gear.
The issue is one of how requirements are let, and how economics and mission effectiveness is a part of the process. I contend that this might (like OEI hover and perhaps 100 other things) be a case of where the requirer has no skin in the cost game, so that hard requirements are set based on the 99th %ile mission and not where it is economically driven. That being said, the customer sets the equipment and the mfgr responds!
The radar is only an issue to the customer, not the manufacturers, since Sikorsky has installed only about 600 of them, and the technical leap is not an impressive one to do it on a 92 sized machine, especially one with a flat belly and retractable gear.
The issue is one of how requirements are let, and how economics and mission effectiveness is a part of the process. I contend that this might (like OEI hover and perhaps 100 other things) be a case of where the requirer has no skin in the cost game, so that hard requirements are set based on the 99th %ile mission and not where it is economically driven. That being said, the customer sets the equipment and the mfgr responds!
That's Life!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Out of the sand pit, carving a path through our jungle.
Age: 72
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not coupled until you engage the Trans Down mode, until that point you are simply using the ASE element of the autopilot for stabilisation and heading hold - that is like normal cruising flight - do the CAA allow that below MSA IMC?
Crab.
At last we agree on something! Nobody wants a degradation in the service currently provided. We all want to see a new machine but it must be the right one for the job. Hence my comments about the AW139. Equipment aside, it could be a step backwards to the days of the Wessex or even the Whirlwind. The aircraft may be able to get there faster, find the casualties easier, but then only be able to pick up at most six or seven. ( Rumour has it that it will have 4 seats in the back, 2 of them for the backseaters!!) Now from my point of view that is not an improvement or even an equalling of the current standard. 30 plus survivors in the Sumburgh machine on one occasion and I should imagine your old buses can cram them in if needed.
Seaside Rescue..... sorry only Equity members allowed on the south coast?
Nick.
I am not complaining about the lack of 360 degree radar. Merely pointing out that something that was part of the original tender requirement has not been fitted. As you say, the customer gets what he asks and pays for.
At last we agree on something! Nobody wants a degradation in the service currently provided. We all want to see a new machine but it must be the right one for the job. Hence my comments about the AW139. Equipment aside, it could be a step backwards to the days of the Wessex or even the Whirlwind. The aircraft may be able to get there faster, find the casualties easier, but then only be able to pick up at most six or seven. ( Rumour has it that it will have 4 seats in the back, 2 of them for the backseaters!!) Now from my point of view that is not an improvement or even an equalling of the current standard. 30 plus survivors in the Sumburgh machine on one occasion and I should imagine your old buses can cram them in if needed.
Seaside Rescue..... sorry only Equity members allowed on the south coast?
Nick.
I am not complaining about the lack of 360 degree radar. Merely pointing out that something that was part of the original tender requirement has not been fitted. As you say, the customer gets what he asks and pays for.
SailorVee - the Mk3A Sea King (of which we have 6) has the SN500 fitted and can only engage overfly from 749' and below - probably the same as yours. I have been campaigning to get the Mk 3 fleet upgraded to the same (relatively modern) standard - your comments are true of the Mk 3, it is a steam driven heap of **** by comparison - but no-one will listen because it costs money.
You still have to get to a point (IMC) where you can engage trans down or overfly (I suspect that like ours, the overfly still means you have to fly the height manually down to 200' before it starts the TD element or you will miss the target) so you still need to be able to clear the area you are turning into (especially as for overfly the SN500 calculates it's own wind and may turn left or right from the overhead). Hence the need for a 360 radar and hence my question how you are allowed to fly below MSA IMC without specific CAA exemption?
You still have to get to a point (IMC) where you can engage trans down or overfly (I suspect that like ours, the overfly still means you have to fly the height manually down to 200' before it starts the TD element or you will miss the target) so you still need to be able to clear the area you are turning into (especially as for overfly the SN500 calculates it's own wind and may turn left or right from the overhead). Hence the need for a 360 radar and hence my question how you are allowed to fly below MSA IMC without specific CAA exemption?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern systems should be capable of letting down from an on-top from greater than 800'. I have tried our system from 3000' and it has worked. Why you would want to do this I don't know as the accuracy of the fix is certainly degraded from this height. If I remember rightly, it did take us 5 miles downwind in the pattern but we did end up about 100 yds from the radar target!
However, if I do change sides can I be on Seaside Rescue?
We need to stick together to fight off the real 'other side' ie the cowboys from air ambulances various who insist on muscling in on rescue situations to keep their stats up to keep the money trickling in...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
We need to stick together to fight off the real 'other side' ie the cowboys from air ambulances various who insist on muscling in on rescue situations to keep their stats up to keep the money trickling in...
Air Ambulance pilots are NOT cowboys!!
The two jobs are completely different: EMS aircraft do not have winches and do not want winches. The two services are complimentary: why waste the valuable resource of a fully equipped SAR machine to pick Mrs Jones who has sprained her ankle on a hillside?? Would an EMS machine be sent out to 'rescue' a sailor out at sea?? Of course not!!!
Stop making moronic comments like the one in your post and start supporting EMS as well as SAR!! We should ALL be working together against the BEANCOUNTERS who are trying to destroy two vital services.
bondu
We need to stick together to fight off the real 'other side' ie the cowboys from air ambulances various who insist on muscling in on rescue situations to keep their stats up to keep the money trickling in...
Air Ambulance pilots are NOT cowboys!!
The two jobs are completely different: EMS aircraft do not have winches and do not want winches. The two services are complimentary: why waste the valuable resource of a fully equipped SAR machine to pick Mrs Jones who has sprained her ankle on a hillside?? Would an EMS machine be sent out to 'rescue' a sailor out at sea?? Of course not!!!
Stop making moronic comments like the one in your post and start supporting EMS as well as SAR!! We should ALL be working together against the BEANCOUNTERS who are trying to destroy two vital services.
bondu
Bondu - I can't believe you bit at Torques poorly baited hook
Bertie - so you are deck landing current again?
Bertie - so you are deck landing current again?