Sea King too old and putting Lives at risk.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
North Sea crews are regularly decending below MSA in IMC on rig radar approaches, using radars less capable than the ones fitted to SAR machines. And it's legal.
I remember speaking to someone who was dettached from Navy SAR to RAF SAR and like you say, his eyes were opened. He couldn't believe how difficult the RAF made SAR for themselves.
NRDK,
"8 piece mixy blob on the doorstep" didn't you thrash me that way once (or many times) before
North Sea crews are regularly decending below MSA in IMC on rig radar approaches, using radars less capable than the ones fitted to SAR machines. And it's legal.
I remember speaking to someone who was dettached from Navy SAR to RAF SAR and like you say, his eyes were opened. He couldn't believe how difficult the RAF made SAR for themselves.
NRDK,
"8 piece mixy blob on the doorstep" didn't you thrash me that way once (or many times) before
Droopystop - it's legal for rig approaches because you are on approach and landing and following an approved procedure - not the case for SAR work so how do they get round it? Possibly because the CAA don't know what they do or understand the dangers of operating below MSA over the sea without proper on-board radar clearances - maybe they just make it up as they go along
If making it difficult for yourself means doing it properly and safely then I'll take that everytime over simple and risky. See what I mean about differences in attitude?
If making it difficult for yourself means doing it properly and safely then I'll take that everytime over simple and risky. See what I mean about differences in attitude?
NVG's intro'd to the RAF Seaking. 92/93. One (2hr) conversion sortie by visiting NVG qual'd QHI.
After that we (the operational crews) just integrated the use of NVG's into all our normal night training.
The NVG SOPS came years later!
After that we (the operational crews) just integrated the use of NVG's into all our normal night training.
The NVG SOPS came years later!
Doesn't surprise me that the NVG convex was so brief, but...
Surely at the time, introducing NVG was an improvement to the existing capability, so the fact that it would have taken crews quite some time to get the hang of NVG didn't matter - during that time, little by little, capability was being enhanced. These days, the mil SAR flts have a great deal of NVG experience, and even newcomers, by the time they get captaincy, will have built up a good degree of proficiency at NVG work.
What this means is that, when mil SAR as we know it is scrapped, the time taken for SAR-H crews to get fully used to NVG will be a period of reduced capability as there will be a drop in the standard of what they can achieve compared to what experienced NVG operators can achieve now (whatever training the SAR-H hierarchy provide for their crews cannot instantly create crews fully proficient in NVG use). I would guess (and it's only a guess - please don't hang me!) that it would take longer for civ SAR crews to adapt to overland NVG work than it did mil crews, given that mil crews had done non-NVG overland work before the advent of NVG; a civ crew (through no fault of their own!) will have to learn night mountains and NVG procedures, whereas the RAF crews simply had to integrate NVG into what they already did overland.
No doubt this likely temporary drop in capability will simply be taken on risk...Crab may well be right that there may be a drop in capability for a while, but I don't think think those in charge will get too bothered about it. Oh well!
TOTD
Last edited by TorqueOfTheDevil; 23rd Nov 2007 at 13:26. Reason: spleling
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
I would just point out that I first flew a Sea King 3 on NVG in autumn 1982 (circuits to a man with a cigarette in the middle of Chetwynd), in preparation for a det to 51S 58W or thereabouts.
Sven
edit to add
We probably were putting lives at risk - we just hadn't figured all the hazards. I guess we were lucky. Over time you learn (and you get better goggles). The trick is then that others take your experience and move on.
I would just point out that I first flew a Sea King 3 on NVG in autumn 1982 (circuits to a man with a cigarette in the middle of Chetwynd), in preparation for a det to 51S 58W or thereabouts.
Sven
edit to add
We probably were putting lives at risk - we just hadn't figured all the hazards. I guess we were lucky. Over time you learn (and you get better goggles). The trick is then that others take your experience and move on.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW
Chaps what a thread! And to think I almost missed it!
Ok, here we go. Now you all know that I don't normally side with Crabb. Its OK I'm not going to yet. However, a couple of pages ago Speechless said a few things about Crabb that were simply not true.
Firstly, I am an ex mil SAR QHI. I flew both Mk3 and 3a Sea Kings. I know Crabb but rarely agree with his posts. However, to say he is arrogant and lacks CRM etc etc is simply not true. Actually, he is a nice bloke who it is a pleasure to know. He also has a cracking sense of humour and I think some of his tongue-in-cheek remarks and irony he uses are being taken too seriously. He also posts stuff that is in the heat of the moment and perhaps goes a little too far.
Crabb. You have just read the above. Now get yourself to an MCA flight and go see how they do it. No invite, poor excuse! Why don't you call the new SAR-H requirements manager and get her to arrange the visit? Then when you have seen the facts and spoken to the people your posts will take on a different tone. Lets bring some harmony back.
Chaps and Chappesses. Once Crabb has done that, its up to the rest of the civ SAR guys/girls to go visit a mil SAR flight.
I am not making excuses for him, or really defending him .. well OK I am a bit. However, I think he really is trying to rant at the 'System' not the individuals - he does say this a lot. Sadly, when ranting at the system it is easy to get sucked in to generalising every one together and insulting the masses.
A couple of other points. Crabb, you are recounting stories of times past about civ SAR. Similar horrendous stories abound for pretty much all the mil SAR flights - Chivenor..... wheels up landing. That covers both services!
All SAR flights change be they military or civil. People move on and places change atmosphere. What was once nothing better than a flying club becomes very professional and a highly regarded place under new leadership. Change the leadership and your back to demotivated people just turning up for work. Example? Being where you are, you know WHO I mean - not your present flight or Sqn OC!
lets just talk about cost and mil vs civ?
Is it cheaper? Or is mil more? Well, I don't actually think there is a great deal in it now - and boy have I been studying this! In an ideal world Crabb you would get new aircraft and carry on. But, your missing one vital point. Its not all about money, its about people. You see there are a lot of you in SAR, and there could be less military a similar service for very similar costs. The surplus people? Well its back off to SH with you all where you are very much needed.
Its not the civvies who undermined mil SAR, its the MOD. You see your lords and masters decided they only wanted a few to gain these cracking skills - and they are cracking skills. The rest need to be in the thick of the fighting. The concept is that the rotation from SAR will spread the experience throughout [I have my own views on if this will work]. Overall, in the end, the stable community will be the civ SAR people. The turn over will be of mil personnel to and from the SH world [and I include the RN in that [sorry RN!]].
So, how to sum up this last paragraph? The MOD thinks you are a Military helicopter pilot that is miss employed in SAR. Sadly, and I mean that, the writing isn't on the wall, its engraved in 2ft high letters and not much is going to stop it!
Ok, here we go. Now you all know that I don't normally side with Crabb. Its OK I'm not going to yet. However, a couple of pages ago Speechless said a few things about Crabb that were simply not true.
Firstly, I am an ex mil SAR QHI. I flew both Mk3 and 3a Sea Kings. I know Crabb but rarely agree with his posts. However, to say he is arrogant and lacks CRM etc etc is simply not true. Actually, he is a nice bloke who it is a pleasure to know. He also has a cracking sense of humour and I think some of his tongue-in-cheek remarks and irony he uses are being taken too seriously. He also posts stuff that is in the heat of the moment and perhaps goes a little too far.
Crabb. You have just read the above. Now get yourself to an MCA flight and go see how they do it. No invite, poor excuse! Why don't you call the new SAR-H requirements manager and get her to arrange the visit? Then when you have seen the facts and spoken to the people your posts will take on a different tone. Lets bring some harmony back.
Chaps and Chappesses. Once Crabb has done that, its up to the rest of the civ SAR guys/girls to go visit a mil SAR flight.
I am not making excuses for him, or really defending him .. well OK I am a bit. However, I think he really is trying to rant at the 'System' not the individuals - he does say this a lot. Sadly, when ranting at the system it is easy to get sucked in to generalising every one together and insulting the masses.
A couple of other points. Crabb, you are recounting stories of times past about civ SAR. Similar horrendous stories abound for pretty much all the mil SAR flights - Chivenor..... wheels up landing. That covers both services!
All SAR flights change be they military or civil. People move on and places change atmosphere. What was once nothing better than a flying club becomes very professional and a highly regarded place under new leadership. Change the leadership and your back to demotivated people just turning up for work. Example? Being where you are, you know WHO I mean - not your present flight or Sqn OC!
lets just talk about cost and mil vs civ?
Is it cheaper? Or is mil more? Well, I don't actually think there is a great deal in it now - and boy have I been studying this! In an ideal world Crabb you would get new aircraft and carry on. But, your missing one vital point. Its not all about money, its about people. You see there are a lot of you in SAR, and there could be less military a similar service for very similar costs. The surplus people? Well its back off to SH with you all where you are very much needed.
Its not the civvies who undermined mil SAR, its the MOD. You see your lords and masters decided they only wanted a few to gain these cracking skills - and they are cracking skills. The rest need to be in the thick of the fighting. The concept is that the rotation from SAR will spread the experience throughout [I have my own views on if this will work]. Overall, in the end, the stable community will be the civ SAR people. The turn over will be of mil personnel to and from the SH world [and I include the RN in that [sorry RN!]].
So, how to sum up this last paragraph? The MOD thinks you are a Military helicopter pilot that is miss employed in SAR. Sadly, and I mean that, the writing isn't on the wall, its engraved in 2ft high letters and not much is going to stop it!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVG
Oh, and I got given a set of NVG on an East Coast flight and told to crack on! After 2 months I did the 2hr course!
Still, its what the best dressed man is wearing at night!
Still, its what the best dressed man is wearing at night!
SARREMF - ...almost brought a tear to my eye...at least someone actually reads my posts - if I knew who you were I'd buy you a pint
The only problem is people will think it's me supporting myself under a different login
You're right that we have been short-changed by the MoD but sending us SH will take years as the OCU's don't have enough aircraft to get us trained up!
Northernstar - the reason I think this issue is important is because it is another of those capability issues; we do have the capability and the authority to do it legally - do the MCA crews? If they don't then something will need to be sorted pronto as there is supposed to be 'no lesser capability' under SARH.
We do clearing turns to check it is OK ahead and you do turns to check it is clear to manoeuvre - 6 and two 3s really until you have to manoeuvre into the coast from the hover in a strong onshore wind, when suddenly a rearward facing radar becomes rather superior.
Out of interest, is the S92 radar x-band and therefore SART compatible and able to see mil Sea Kings with I (x-band) transponders - rather important in multi aircraft ops.
The only problem is people will think it's me supporting myself under a different login
You're right that we have been short-changed by the MoD but sending us SH will take years as the OCU's don't have enough aircraft to get us trained up!
Northernstar - the reason I think this issue is important is because it is another of those capability issues; we do have the capability and the authority to do it legally - do the MCA crews? If they don't then something will need to be sorted pronto as there is supposed to be 'no lesser capability' under SARH.
We do clearing turns to check it is OK ahead and you do turns to check it is clear to manoeuvre - 6 and two 3s really until you have to manoeuvre into the coast from the hover in a strong onshore wind, when suddenly a rearward facing radar becomes rather superior.
Out of interest, is the S92 radar x-band and therefore SART compatible and able to see mil Sea Kings with I (x-band) transponders - rather important in multi aircraft ops.
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
I would just point out that I first flew a Sea King 3 on NVG in autumn 1982 (circuits to a man with a cigarette in the middle of Chetwynd), in preparation for a det to 51S 58W or thereabouts.
Sven
edit to add
We probably were putting lives at risk - we just hadn't figured all the hazards. I guess we were lucky. Over time you learn (and you get better goggles). The trick is then that others take your experience and move on.
Sven
edit to add
We probably were putting lives at risk - we just hadn't figured all the hazards. I guess we were lucky. Over time you learn (and you get better goggles). The trick is then that others take your experience and move on.
And we had to go back to using throat mikes while using the goggles, which didn't help.
I got funny eyes now...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Age: 66
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab, It would help if you read the posts.
Now, leave the gate barrier alone for a while and listen.
You said ;
"Sendem - as soon as you are tasked, ARCC are informed and it appears on the RCS, "
I am not tasked. I do the tasking . I SEND THEM. Clues as to the user name ?
The ARCC are informed When I get round to it. When I feel like it. I try to be prompt but sometimes it is after landing. What pisses me off that our helicopters fly a SAR mission, I tell the ARCC after the helo has landed and the ARCC puts another a pin in its map for a job that they "coordinated".
Crab Said;
"Have you ever been to Kinloss to see what your tasking authority does - your oversimplified statement would suggest not."
I was there 1-2 November 2006. As an ex-cavalry officer; your officer's Mess would be unacceptable to the Lance Corporals in my regiment. Grow-bags in the dining room ! And the food !
Crab said;
"As for your last post, you well know what I was commenting on regarding second standby - you don't have a seconds crew and we do, is that simple enough for you."
Our pilots/crew can jump into the spare helo and fly it ; without an erck having to paint their name on the side and waiting 8 hours for it to dry.
You may have a second crew but when I call the ARCC every morning I discover there is not a second helo for them to fly.
Now, leave the gate barrier alone for a while and listen.
You said ;
"Sendem - as soon as you are tasked, ARCC are informed and it appears on the RCS, "
I am not tasked. I do the tasking . I SEND THEM. Clues as to the user name ?
The ARCC are informed When I get round to it. When I feel like it. I try to be prompt but sometimes it is after landing. What pisses me off that our helicopters fly a SAR mission, I tell the ARCC after the helo has landed and the ARCC puts another a pin in its map for a job that they "coordinated".
Crab Said;
"Have you ever been to Kinloss to see what your tasking authority does - your oversimplified statement would suggest not."
I was there 1-2 November 2006. As an ex-cavalry officer; your officer's Mess would be unacceptable to the Lance Corporals in my regiment. Grow-bags in the dining room ! And the food !
Crab said;
"As for your last post, you well know what I was commenting on regarding second standby - you don't have a seconds crew and we do, is that simple enough for you."
Our pilots/crew can jump into the spare helo and fly it ; without an erck having to paint their name on the side and waiting 8 hours for it to dry.
You may have a second crew but when I call the ARCC every morning I discover there is not a second helo for them to fly.
Send'em - you seem proud of the fact that you are often tardy in informing the tasking authority for ALL UK SAR helicopters that you have launched one of their assets - that sounds very professional - not!
You seem to typify the MCA protectionist/partitionist attitude - are you the guy who only as a last resort calls the ARRCK to get Chivenor or Culdrose in, especially when Portland are at home overnight and your only asset is Lee?
I have met and worked with many cavalry officers and generally they are good (if slightly pompous) chaps but it is an interesting change of direction from Army to MCA - perhaps your underlying attitude to RAF aircrew is given away by your comments about the Offs Mess at Kinloss and erks painting our aircraft
No seconds every morning? Now you are being fatuous - even during our worst periods the availability is still over 80% - can you read the RCS through your tainted glasses?
Droopy and Steve, thanks for the info.
Running In - don't confuse ATC transponders with I-band transponders - TCAS won't alert to an I band one. The I band ones show up on an I band radar so that in multi-aircraft ops, everyone with compatible kit can see all the others, esp at night or in poor wx. So the S61 and S92 radars will only see aircraft ahead of them - our blind arc is only 30 degrees, theirs is 240 degrees (assuming 60 degree sweep either side of nose). Knowing exactly where the aircraft is means not having to take TCAS avoiding action when it detects the ATC transponder - that would be a pain in the backside when you are trying to conduct a search.
You seem to typify the MCA protectionist/partitionist attitude - are you the guy who only as a last resort calls the ARRCK to get Chivenor or Culdrose in, especially when Portland are at home overnight and your only asset is Lee?
I have met and worked with many cavalry officers and generally they are good (if slightly pompous) chaps but it is an interesting change of direction from Army to MCA - perhaps your underlying attitude to RAF aircrew is given away by your comments about the Offs Mess at Kinloss and erks painting our aircraft
No seconds every morning? Now you are being fatuous - even during our worst periods the availability is still over 80% - can you read the RCS through your tainted glasses?
Droopy and Steve, thanks for the info.
Running In - don't confuse ATC transponders with I-band transponders - TCAS won't alert to an I band one. The I band ones show up on an I band radar so that in multi-aircraft ops, everyone with compatible kit can see all the others, esp at night or in poor wx. So the S61 and S92 radars will only see aircraft ahead of them - our blind arc is only 30 degrees, theirs is 240 degrees (assuming 60 degree sweep either side of nose). Knowing exactly where the aircraft is means not having to take TCAS avoiding action when it detects the ATC transponder - that would be a pain in the backside when you are trying to conduct a search.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
It is you who seem confused. TCAS gives you 360 degree coverage and it displayed on the pilots' screens so that they can see traffic at all times - it is not linked to the radar it is a separate system. With the Sea King's current arrangement you can only see I Bands when someone is in the "shack", so no cover when winching etc. TCAS also shows you when non SAR aircraft get in the way!
The world has moved on since the Sea King, wake up and smell the coffee.
RI
It is you who seem confused. TCAS gives you 360 degree coverage and it displayed on the pilots' screens so that they can see traffic at all times - it is not linked to the radar it is a separate system. With the Sea King's current arrangement you can only see I Bands when someone is in the "shack", so no cover when winching etc. TCAS also shows you when non SAR aircraft get in the way!
The world has moved on since the Sea King, wake up and smell the coffee.
RI
Crab
Now that is a bit rich. You are not the only one who is keeping a list of taskings from ARCCK, and their positions to the most suitable,available asset !?
You seem to typify the MCA protectionist/partitionist attitude
Running In - I think you are over-egging the capability of TCAS somewhat - it will tell what quadrant another aicraft is and issue a TA if the altitudes conflict but it is not much use when conducting a multi-aircraft search at low level in poor vis/night when you need to know exactly where the other aircraft are - TCAS doesn't have that level of accuracy.
Frankly having the TCAS alerting all the time during such an op would be very distracting. And since I am talking about searching, the Radop would always be in the radshack. In fact the TV screen with the radar plot on is easily visible from the cabin door when winching - maybe you haven't seen what the latest fit looks like.
I'm not saying TCAS wouldn't be nice for general ops but in specific situations the I band radar wins.
3D - I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - if you mean the ARRCK might task a military asset instead of a civ one then it is possible but only for good operational reasons. The advantage of having the RCS is that you can see at a glance what the other flights are doing and whether they are closer to a job because they are airborne on training. You can also see how the serviceability affects the UK cover as a whole and choose not to send the obvious flight because it would leave half the UK with no SAR cover.
Still waiting re IMC below MSA
Frankly having the TCAS alerting all the time during such an op would be very distracting. And since I am talking about searching, the Radop would always be in the radshack. In fact the TV screen with the radar plot on is easily visible from the cabin door when winching - maybe you haven't seen what the latest fit looks like.
I'm not saying TCAS wouldn't be nice for general ops but in specific situations the I band radar wins.
3D - I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - if you mean the ARRCK might task a military asset instead of a civ one then it is possible but only for good operational reasons. The advantage of having the RCS is that you can see at a glance what the other flights are doing and whether they are closer to a job because they are airborne on training. You can also see how the serviceability affects the UK cover as a whole and choose not to send the obvious flight because it would leave half the UK with no SAR cover.
Still waiting re IMC below MSA
Crab,
There could be several reason why no-one has replied to your question on descent below MSA (although I did several months ago - probably on a PM) and that is because the regulation establishes that it can be done but does not spell out the method of compliance. It is left to the operator to submit a proposal. Any reply could therefore reveal the company of the poster.
Firstly bear in mind that the MSA (LSALT) over the sea is 1,300ft (usually rounded to 1,500).
Apart its obvious use for an en-route descent - e.g. to avoid an instrument approach to a complex environment (where the approach and go-around directions are not clear of obstacles); it can be used as a fall back procedure in Coastal Aerodromes procedures; and a descent in compliance with Limited Icing clearances. Here is the content of the rule:
The more specific of any application would be that submitted by a SAR operator for whom limits would be directly associated with their operational constraints and the demands of the task.
Such a procedure would be in the Operations Manual (or, for the SAR unit, the SAR Appendix).
Jim
There could be several reason why no-one has replied to your question on descent below MSA (although I did several months ago - probably on a PM) and that is because the regulation establishes that it can be done but does not spell out the method of compliance. It is left to the operator to submit a proposal. Any reply could therefore reveal the company of the poster.
Firstly bear in mind that the MSA (LSALT) over the sea is 1,300ft (usually rounded to 1,500).
Apart its obvious use for an en-route descent - e.g. to avoid an instrument approach to a complex environment (where the approach and go-around directions are not clear of obstacles); it can be used as a fall back procedure in Coastal Aerodromes procedures; and a descent in compliance with Limited Icing clearances. Here is the content of the rule:
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.
Any applicant would have to submit a safety case establishing the extent and limits of the procedure together with requirements for equipment; accuracy of height would require the RADALT and obstacle clearance in the descent sector, the airborne RADAR.The more specific of any application would be that submitted by a SAR operator for whom limits would be directly associated with their operational constraints and the demands of the task.
Such a procedure would be in the Operations Manual (or, for the SAR unit, the SAR Appendix).
Jim
Jim, I see where you get 1300' from but not 1500' - we use 1000' and don't overfly any radar contacts below that.
The normal Non Representative Allowance added to terrain overland is 300' and the Maximum Elevation Figures on our maps reflect the maximum terrain plus the NRA. Over the sea with no other structures, this figure becomes 300' and does not need to be rounded up further so the MSA over open water would be 1300'. But we base our safety altitude on the highest terrain we are likely to fly over, not the MEF so ours is 1000' over open water. The advantage of a good radar is that it will see any vessel or structure (especially those nasty windfarms) and we just avoid them below 1000'.
All that one of the SAR operators needs to do is post here outlining what they do when letting down IMC to a radar contact or GPS position to effect a rescue or carry out a search -the exemption for approach and landing is not valid in this case.
We have a specific exemption in JSP 550 to operate IMC below MSA over water because we have clearly laid down procedures using Rad Alt and on-board radar for vertical and horizontal clearances - this is why we carry a Radar Operator and have a large radar swept arc 330 degrees.
I know this all seems like semantics but this is a capability that is not matched by the S92 or S61 and needs to be addressed before 2012.
The normal Non Representative Allowance added to terrain overland is 300' and the Maximum Elevation Figures on our maps reflect the maximum terrain plus the NRA. Over the sea with no other structures, this figure becomes 300' and does not need to be rounded up further so the MSA over open water would be 1300'. But we base our safety altitude on the highest terrain we are likely to fly over, not the MEF so ours is 1000' over open water. The advantage of a good radar is that it will see any vessel or structure (especially those nasty windfarms) and we just avoid them below 1000'.
All that one of the SAR operators needs to do is post here outlining what they do when letting down IMC to a radar contact or GPS position to effect a rescue or carry out a search -the exemption for approach and landing is not valid in this case.
We have a specific exemption in JSP 550 to operate IMC below MSA over water because we have clearly laid down procedures using Rad Alt and on-board radar for vertical and horizontal clearances - this is why we carry a Radar Operator and have a large radar swept arc 330 degrees.
I know this all seems like semantics but this is a capability that is not matched by the S92 or S61 and needs to be addressed before 2012.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
I thought we had covered this ages ago. The CAA give an exemption to the 500' rule and authority to carry out SAROps and training to lower heights both in VMC and IMC. The civilian operators have laid down SOPs for let-downs to radar contacts/let downs over the sea which have been demonstrated to a CAA Ops Inspector and approved. In some cases they use the same radar that the North Sea operators use routinely to do en-route let-downs to 500' during the day and deck height + 50' for ARAs with a minimum of 200' (day) in IMC down to .75nm
This same radar is more than capable of holding targets to .25nm quite safely for SAR and this is authorised as part of the exemption by the CAA. I know, I have used it in anger to do this. You don't need a dedicated radar operator if the aircraft is capable of reducing the pilots' workload to such an extent that operating the radar is a minor part of the NFP's capacity. Please bear in mind that ops in IMC over the sea, admittedly only to 200', are a common occurrence with a crew of only two pilots over the North Sea.
I thought we had covered this ages ago. The CAA give an exemption to the 500' rule and authority to carry out SAROps and training to lower heights both in VMC and IMC. The civilian operators have laid down SOPs for let-downs to radar contacts/let downs over the sea which have been demonstrated to a CAA Ops Inspector and approved. In some cases they use the same radar that the North Sea operators use routinely to do en-route let-downs to 500' during the day and deck height + 50' for ARAs with a minimum of 200' (day) in IMC down to .75nm
This same radar is more than capable of holding targets to .25nm quite safely for SAR and this is authorised as part of the exemption by the CAA. I know, I have used it in anger to do this. You don't need a dedicated radar operator if the aircraft is capable of reducing the pilots' workload to such an extent that operating the radar is a minor part of the NFP's capacity. Please bear in mind that ops in IMC over the sea, admittedly only to 200', are a common occurrence with a crew of only two pilots over the North Sea.
Cyclic, thanks for the information -I don't think we had covered this before. The radar may be acceptable for holding large contacts ie rigs and supertankers down to .25nm but what about smaller vessels and structures like winds farms and masts? To successfully let down to a target IMC within a limited area, you need to manoeuvre well below 500', we use 200', so that the Trans down doesn't take too much room. We have more flexibility because we can clear turns during our TD, whereas with a forward only looking radar you would be turning into an uncleared area.
Frankly in IMC over the water I would take a well trained Radop over a co-pilot anyday.
Is it possible to get sight of the Ops manual/SOPs?
Frankly in IMC over the water I would take a well trained Radop over a co-pilot anyday.
Is it possible to get sight of the Ops manual/SOPs?