UK SAR First S-92
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
You talk about hard won SAR capability but your battle to get a FLIR camera took you 20 years!! So by that reckoning if we civvy's were to ask for a 330 degree radar like yours (not 360 as you like to spin) then by your standards it'll be perfectly acceptable for SAR-H to bring them in by 2032!
You know one day you may leave the RAF and have to work with guys like us. You'll fit in better if you are able to embrace new ideas and different solutions to problems. Someone can come up with good idea without having been in the RAF first you know. I know this must be difficult for you to understand but leave it for a few days and it may sink in gradually!
Crab, not deck current, just a deceptive photo at Grimsby docks. I offered the job to the Leconfield SAR cab that was doing IF circuits nearby at Humberside at the time, but they declined.
Ah, as usual Night Watchman, when you haven't got any facts to bring to a discussion, you start calling names.....yawn.....
Particularly penetrating logic about the FLIR and radar
Particularly penetrating logic about the FLIR and radar
Looking one fundamental aspect of the S-92 design: will the CHC machines still have the cooling air for the avionics racks and centre console drawn from the outside? I would have thought the best place for the source was the cabin. If not, I'm looking forward to seeing how the avionics like being cooled with salt spray! 
It would be a simple fix to use the cabin as the air source, I'm sure.
It would be a simple fix to use the cabin as the air source, I'm sure.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
May I suggest that you contact some of your old colleagues that have flown the Bond Jigsaw Super Pumas and ask them what they can do with their kit? I think you will be very surprised at how flexible their kit is, and it is much better than the SN500/501 equipment fitted to the S61/Sea King 3A.
I would also suggest that you pay them a visit and just see what is available to a commercial SAR operator these days and what will no doubt be on the SAR S-92. I agree with Night Watchman with your apparent contempt for civvy SAR. You do appear to have a large chip on your shoulder about it, no matter how many times you try to say you don't.
By the way, the fact that there isn't a 360deg radar doesn't mean that you cannot get the job done. At least the S92 and the Bond Jigsaw aircraft can see straight ahead without having to do 30deg turns to clear the blind arc every few miles! That to my view is much safer and better.
May I suggest that you contact some of your old colleagues that have flown the Bond Jigsaw Super Pumas and ask them what they can do with their kit? I think you will be very surprised at how flexible their kit is, and it is much better than the SN500/501 equipment fitted to the S61/Sea King 3A.
I would also suggest that you pay them a visit and just see what is available to a commercial SAR operator these days and what will no doubt be on the SAR S-92. I agree with Night Watchman with your apparent contempt for civvy SAR. You do appear to have a large chip on your shoulder about it, no matter how many times you try to say you don't.
By the way, the fact that there isn't a 360deg radar doesn't mean that you cannot get the job done. At least the S92 and the Bond Jigsaw aircraft can see straight ahead without having to do 30deg turns to clear the blind arc every few miles! That to my view is much safer and better.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Neverland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212-You-D'-Man
I can just see a whole room full of designers going WHAAAAT! Or whatever the French is for that.
Designer: What we will do is suck outside air from this huge scoop to cool our electrics. It will be an efficient way of meeting the energy needs of the design brief.
Boss: Good
Salesman: We've sold this GREAT aircraft to the world - It will have to hover very close to the water and suck up all the moisture into its electrics, but we will make lots of MONEY
Boss: Good
Designer: Actually, that's not a good idea
Boss: Shut up
Salesman: But we've sold it
Boss: Good
Designer: But
Boss: Shut up
Customer: This is a great aircraft
Boss: Good
Cutomer: But, Splash
Boss: Don't worry, you sue us, we'll sue the f@cking designer, and then we'll all be OK
212-is-D-Man!
But make some money from it!
Zeb
Designer: What we will do is suck outside air from this huge scoop to cool our electrics. It will be an efficient way of meeting the energy needs of the design brief.
Boss: Good
Salesman: We've sold this GREAT aircraft to the world - It will have to hover very close to the water and suck up all the moisture into its electrics, but we will make lots of MONEY
Boss: Good
Designer: Actually, that's not a good idea
Boss: Shut up
Salesman: But we've sold it
Boss: Good
Designer: But
Boss: Shut up
Customer: This is a great aircraft
Boss: Good
Cutomer: But, Splash
Boss: Don't worry, you sue us, we'll sue the f@cking designer, and then we'll all be OK
212-is-D-Man!
But make some money from it!
Zeb
Well, I wasn't banking on that response; more a simple answer! But I take the point.
Jknife - if there wasn't better kit out there than the stuff we use in the military I would be very surprised and the S92 has , I am assured, a very capable autopilot/FPC/FCS/FMS.
My only chip is when people state, without correct up to date information, what current military SAR capability is and then in the same sentence claim the same capability for civvy SAR.
Your comment about radar is typical - unless you have operated with our 330 degree radar and seen it's advantages (yes it would be nice to see ahead as well but clearing turns are simple and quick) and tried IMC letdowns to cliffs with awkward winds, you will not understand the argument.
I still haven't seen a reply reference CAA clearance to operate IMC below MSA.
My only chip is when people state, without correct up to date information, what current military SAR capability is and then in the same sentence claim the same capability for civvy SAR.
Your comment about radar is typical - unless you have operated with our 330 degree radar and seen it's advantages (yes it would be nice to see ahead as well but clearing turns are simple and quick) and tried IMC letdowns to cliffs with awkward winds, you will not understand the argument.
I still haven't seen a reply reference CAA clearance to operate IMC below MSA.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Neverland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212Man
Probably the most qualified people to comment on this are HKGFS - they have been doing "real SAR" - day, night, little boats in cr@p conditions etc., with the L2 for at least 5 years, and maybe more. Normally they are good at getting public support, but I note they have been very quiet on this forum - any comments guys?
Zeb
Probably the most qualified people to comment on this are HKGFS - they have been doing "real SAR" - day, night, little boats in cr@p conditions etc., with the L2 for at least 5 years, and maybe more. Normally they are good at getting public support, but I note they have been very quiet on this forum - any comments guys?
Zeb
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
You are operating IMC below MSA when conducting a rig radar approach. It happens everyday on the North Sea by commercial aircraft flown by two pilots with a forward looking radar. OK, the mimima is .75nm for obvious reasons and the MDA is deck height plus 50' but this is a CAA approved approach both flown as a pattern or alternatively straight-in. Letting down to radar contacts IMC below MSA by civilian SAR operators is also approved by the CAA. When a company applies for its approvals a CAA ops inspector flies with the operator, inspects the Ops Manuals and makes sure that the correct training is in place before an EXEMPTION is granted. This exemption will also state that the operator is exempt the 500' rule etc. whilst conducting training. It will also state the exemptions involved for training power requirements. For example, the S61 rules are significantly different to the L2 due to the power available and the way the system deals with power loss.
I hope this answers your question. In terms of operating in congested parts of our seas and waterways, a 360 radar would be handy. However, there are parts of the North Sea that are still very congested and we manage to let down to rigs and vessels with the radar we have. Please remember that civilian operators are letting down to dive vessels etc. everyday to carry out public transport ops - it isn't just rigs and the sole domain of the military. If you saw what goes on in the North Sea during the winter it would open your eyes a little - it did mine
You are operating IMC below MSA when conducting a rig radar approach. It happens everyday on the North Sea by commercial aircraft flown by two pilots with a forward looking radar. OK, the mimima is .75nm for obvious reasons and the MDA is deck height plus 50' but this is a CAA approved approach both flown as a pattern or alternatively straight-in. Letting down to radar contacts IMC below MSA by civilian SAR operators is also approved by the CAA. When a company applies for its approvals a CAA ops inspector flies with the operator, inspects the Ops Manuals and makes sure that the correct training is in place before an EXEMPTION is granted. This exemption will also state that the operator is exempt the 500' rule etc. whilst conducting training. It will also state the exemptions involved for training power requirements. For example, the S61 rules are significantly different to the L2 due to the power available and the way the system deals with power loss.
I hope this answers your question. In terms of operating in congested parts of our seas and waterways, a 360 radar would be handy. However, there are parts of the North Sea that are still very congested and we manage to let down to rigs and vessels with the radar we have. Please remember that civilian operators are letting down to dive vessels etc. everyday to carry out public transport ops - it isn't just rigs and the sole domain of the military. If you saw what goes on in the North Sea during the winter it would open your eyes a little - it did mine
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your comment about radar is typical - unless you have operated with our 330 degree radar and seen it's advantages (yes it would be nice to see ahead as well but clearing turns are simple and quick) and tried IMC letdowns to cliffs with awkward winds, you will not understand the argument.
Cyclic has really made the comment that I would have made. I would also say that the MCA S61s appear to do IMC letdowns to cliffs quite safely as will the S92. You just adapt your procedure accordingly.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hong Kong GFS
We are quiet because we're very busy! Take a look at our website for the lates info on rescues. The L2 isn't the best SAR machine in the world and the hoist design in particular is a load of s**t but it still gets the job done. We are currently looking at a replacement: S92, EC225 and AB139 have all been investigated but as mainland China is getting 225's I expect that may influence the final decision. My vote goes to the S92 but I am merely a worker bee.
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
Torques poorly baited hook
Cyclic, thankyou for answering the question, I assumed it would all be pukka but without access to the relevant documents I couldn't be sure. The prospect of North Sea operating has never attracted me or I would have done it years ago - all that nasty icing and no NVG for the night approaches - you can keep it!
Jknife - frankly in the days you are talking about, I am surprised anyone saw anything on the radar screen, that old round display with the acetate overlays was just awful. The modern CRT screen with digital mapping is much better (I'm not saying a target can't be missed but it is far less likely).
It may be a small proportion of rescues that need the capability but, like so many other things, it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. The next time the hooter goes it could be for a yacht with a family aboard being smashed onto rocks with an onshore wind and big cliffs in warm sector weather conditions.
Do the MCA have an SOP for IMC cliff letdowns?
We don't use our FLIR/TV turret for a lot of rescues but it increases our operational capability enormously.
Yes NVG are used at night but they don't help IMC
Jknife - frankly in the days you are talking about, I am surprised anyone saw anything on the radar screen, that old round display with the acetate overlays was just awful. The modern CRT screen with digital mapping is much better (I'm not saying a target can't be missed but it is far less likely).
It may be a small proportion of rescues that need the capability but, like so many other things, it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. The next time the hooter goes it could be for a yacht with a family aboard being smashed onto rocks with an onshore wind and big cliffs in warm sector weather conditions.
Do the MCA have an SOP for IMC cliff letdowns?
We don't use our FLIR/TV turret for a lot of rescues but it increases our operational capability enormously.
Yes NVG are used at night but they don't help IMC
Crab,
I have been waiting (in vain) for someone to answer your question about flight below MSA (LSALT); with regard to JAR-OPS 3 (which provides the underlying rules - even for coatguard operations), the relevent text is contained in JAR-OPS 3.365:
no more than this is required because, without knowing the circumstances, prescription would be difficult; operation manual (OM) procedures have to be submitted to the Authority for Approval.
All North Seas operators have such a procedure in their OM; it would be a surprise if the coastguard operator(s) did not have suitably risk assessed set of procedures in theirs.
Jim
I have been waiting (in vain) for someone to answer your question about flight below MSA (LSALT); with regard to JAR-OPS 3 (which provides the underlying rules - even for coatguard operations), the relevent text is contained in JAR-OPS 3.365:
JAR-OPS 3.365 Minimum flight altitudes
(See IEM OPS 3.250)
The pilot flying shall not descend below specified minimum altitudes except when necessary for take-off or landing, or when descending in accordance with procedures approved by the Authority.
(See IEM OPS 3.250)
The pilot flying shall not descend below specified minimum altitudes except when necessary for take-off or landing, or when descending in accordance with procedures approved by the Authority.
All North Seas operators have such a procedure in their OM; it would be a surprise if the coastguard operator(s) did not have suitably risk assessed set of procedures in theirs.
Jim
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...ds/7044615.stm
PS. I'm still curious as to whether the avionics cooling intakes have been modified!
PS. I'm still curious as to whether the avionics cooling intakes have been modified!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still curious as to whether the avionics cooling intakes have been modified!
Seems like a fairly obvious outcome to me.
Hastily found photo below, seems to show what I expected: (Black) cooling air full of sea spray (and it's a calm day!) disappears into belly, and is liberally distributed all round the avionics racks and centre pedestal, before being ejected out the side (red). Genius!
Hastily found photo below, seems to show what I expected: (Black) cooling air full of sea spray (and it's a calm day!) disappears into belly, and is liberally distributed all round the avionics racks and centre pedestal, before being ejected out the side (red). Genius!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the intakes for the two avionic racks are in the cabin, one each side at head level as you step into the cockpit.
The console intakes however, are in the nose area, and the little flap valves need stronger springs
The console intakes however, are in the nose area, and the little flap valves need stronger springs