First SAR AW139 On Line
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said 3d
The 139 is I'm sure a lovely machine to fly from airport to platform/airport, but it's not a SAR aircraft. I'm sure the guys 'n' gals will do the best they can but in this day and age of extraordinary technology why are aircraft manufacturers and governing authorities allowing such a poor attitude to safety and mission accomplishment to be rushed through just to please bean counters , PR machines and the MCA/DTI?... Oh.. Er..
The 139 is I'm sure a lovely machine to fly from airport to platform/airport, but it's not a SAR aircraft. I'm sure the guys 'n' gals will do the best they can but in this day and age of extraordinary technology why are aircraft manufacturers and governing authorities allowing such a poor attitude to safety and mission accomplishment to be rushed through just to please bean counters , PR machines and the MCA/DTI?... Oh.. Er..
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a few facts might go down well at this point? OK OK why let facts get in the way of a good moan!
Range - depending on conditions - 200nms [ even more if you have the aux tank fitted]
Autohover, fitted. Not certified yet.
Not heard a thing about a grounding? Oh, when you were all banging on about the S92 and its issues did we not all say thats what happens when you bring in ANY new aircraft! Of course Crabb, you weren't there when the Sea King Mk 3a came in, and out, and back in again. lets face it, new aircraft take time to bed in. Engineers take time to really know how to maintain the aircraft. Pilots and crew take time to settle in to the aircraft. Irrespective of manufacturer or operator.
Blue rotor Ronin. What on earth are you talking about! If the Sea King or S61 had to go through todays certification - like the 139 and 92 have - they would not be allowed off the ground.
4candals - have you actually flown the aircraft? When I did, it did not have poor references at all, the door pillar for decks was out of the way. It has a nose up attitude [about 4 to 5 degrees] but it never gave any of the pilots I was with a problem. Why does it for you?
Agree with you entirely over night sun and I think it generally needs more lights - hover floods etc. I noticed the zero degree thing in the RFM but the ice protection kit later on will make all the difference for SAR_H.
Overall chaps, are you missing the point? This is the Interim contract. Pre SAR-H. Its not the SAR-H blueprint because the requirement changes with SAR-H. Interestingly, you can easily spot who hasn't had access to the requirement by the talk of which bases can move! A lot of you are barking up the wrong tree me thinks! I believe the SAR-H IPT have been much more conservative than you all think!
Stands back. Pause. Listen, yep I can hear Crabb's computer firing up in the background!
Range - depending on conditions - 200nms [ even more if you have the aux tank fitted]
Autohover, fitted. Not certified yet.
Not heard a thing about a grounding? Oh, when you were all banging on about the S92 and its issues did we not all say thats what happens when you bring in ANY new aircraft! Of course Crabb, you weren't there when the Sea King Mk 3a came in, and out, and back in again. lets face it, new aircraft take time to bed in. Engineers take time to really know how to maintain the aircraft. Pilots and crew take time to settle in to the aircraft. Irrespective of manufacturer or operator.
Blue rotor Ronin. What on earth are you talking about! If the Sea King or S61 had to go through todays certification - like the 139 and 92 have - they would not be allowed off the ground.
4candals - have you actually flown the aircraft? When I did, it did not have poor references at all, the door pillar for decks was out of the way. It has a nose up attitude [about 4 to 5 degrees] but it never gave any of the pilots I was with a problem. Why does it for you?
Agree with you entirely over night sun and I think it generally needs more lights - hover floods etc. I noticed the zero degree thing in the RFM but the ice protection kit later on will make all the difference for SAR_H.
Overall chaps, are you missing the point? This is the Interim contract. Pre SAR-H. Its not the SAR-H blueprint because the requirement changes with SAR-H. Interestingly, you can easily spot who hasn't had access to the requirement by the talk of which bases can move! A lot of you are barking up the wrong tree me thinks! I believe the SAR-H IPT have been much more conservative than you all think!
Stands back. Pause. Listen, yep I can hear Crabb's computer firing up in the background!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terminological Pedantry
SARREMF,
Did you really mean a range of 200nm (ie a RoA, still air, of 100nm)? Hardly impressive. Does anyone know the true RoA that has been declared so we can see just how much further the 139 can fly than its predecessors? The MCA are an unashamed bunch of liars when it comes to press releases, they should be called to account.
Did you really mean a range of 200nm (ie a RoA, still air, of 100nm)? Hardly impressive. Does anyone know the true RoA that has been declared so we can see just how much further the 139 can fly than its predecessors? The MCA are an unashamed bunch of liars when it comes to press releases, they should be called to account.
if of any help this is my personal data:
AW139 with 4500kg EW
With aux. tank, max fuel is around 1600kg but limited by max take off weight to 1450kg fuel
cruise 5000' 6ºC Tas 152 (no wind)
back to base at 1000' 16ºC Tas 138 (no wind)
RoA with 30 minutes on station and 30' reserve = +-203Nm
SARREMF
Do you mean SAR flight director modes(MOT,TD)?, because 4-axis autohover is certified and in use...
Regards
Aser
AW139 with 4500kg EW
With aux. tank, max fuel is around 1600kg but limited by max take off weight to 1450kg fuel
cruise 5000' 6ºC Tas 152 (no wind)
back to base at 1000' 16ºC Tas 138 (no wind)
RoA with 30 minutes on station and 30' reserve = +-203Nm
SARREMF
Autohover, fitted. Not certified yet.
Regards
Aser
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL9000
I don't see much of an issue with the range because the majority of jobs that the SAR Flights on the South Coast will cover are well within the published range of the aircraft. In the event that the job requires the aircraft to travel further ie inland flooding then you can bet your bottom dollar that the ARCC/MRCC will have arranged refuelling well in advance which is what happened during the Gloucester floods last year.
I don't see much of an issue with the range because the majority of jobs that the SAR Flights on the South Coast will cover are well within the published range of the aircraft. In the event that the job requires the aircraft to travel further ie inland flooding then you can bet your bottom dollar that the ARCC/MRCC will have arranged refuelling well in advance which is what happened during the Gloucester floods last year.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorrrrrry! thats an ROA of 200nms with 30 mins on scene i.e. out 200nms, saty for 30 and back 200nms! Which agrees with Aser.
Sorry again. I believe the autohover works and the let downs etc just not search patterns! But I can be corrected!
Sorry again. I believe the autohover works and the let downs etc just not search patterns! But I can be corrected!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARREMF,
Please take note of the following. ASER also uses figures which includes restricting the use of the AUX Tank.
Standard Tank Fit
Fuel Flow 420-430kg/hr
Standard Tank 1588ltrs/1254 kg
70% Torque 138-140kts
20 mins on scene plus 30 mins reserve on RTN
At 140kts thats a range of 140nm exactly
Aux tank Fit
Due to weight of aircraft with limited SAR equip plus crew only 150kg is usable.
That bumps the range up to 165nm.
With this aircraft it is possible to increase the range by climbing to altitude however it isn't always appropriate or possible.
An increase in the Max all up weight of the aircraft would change this but unfortunately the Aux tank still displaces much needed cabin and storage space.
As mentioned by a previous poster range is a not a significant issue at all but I feel one can't quote erroneous figures.
The SAR crews can obviously work around but not escape the following
And this doesnt mean a harp back to the 61. They are just facts plain and simple.
Less range, less payload, much less volume,
less external illumination, reduced ground clearance, small narrow tyres mean the a/c sinks in on even resonably firm surfaces.
High vibration between 18-30kts. No flying in cloud at 0 or below
And no AVAD
Surely you dont just happen to notice this when selecting a SAR Aircraft. If its needed for the big contract then why not now.
.
Experiment??
Can I respectfully point out that, I believe in this case many SAR crews are actually more than pleased to have a new toy and really rather like the change after all this time. (about time)
Its only when its claimed by some to be an aircraft able to do so much more because of all this modern technology and a giant step forward for the rescue services (and they fall for it) that a few folk are reluctantly prompted to set the record straight with a few comments as above. Thankyou
Please take note of the following. ASER also uses figures which includes restricting the use of the AUX Tank.
Standard Tank Fit
Fuel Flow 420-430kg/hr
Standard Tank 1588ltrs/1254 kg
70% Torque 138-140kts
20 mins on scene plus 30 mins reserve on RTN
At 140kts thats a range of 140nm exactly
Aux tank Fit
Due to weight of aircraft with limited SAR equip plus crew only 150kg is usable.
That bumps the range up to 165nm.
With this aircraft it is possible to increase the range by climbing to altitude however it isn't always appropriate or possible.
An increase in the Max all up weight of the aircraft would change this but unfortunately the Aux tank still displaces much needed cabin and storage space.
As mentioned by a previous poster range is a not a significant issue at all but I feel one can't quote erroneous figures.
The SAR crews can obviously work around but not escape the following
And this doesnt mean a harp back to the 61. They are just facts plain and simple.
Less range, less payload, much less volume,
less external illumination, reduced ground clearance, small narrow tyres mean the a/c sinks in on even resonably firm surfaces.
High vibration between 18-30kts. No flying in cloud at 0 or below
And no AVAD
I noticed the zero degree thing in the RFM but the ice protection kit later on will make all the difference for SAR_H.
Overall chaps, are you missing the point? This is the Interim contract
Experiment??
Can I respectfully point out that, I believe in this case many SAR crews are actually more than pleased to have a new toy and really rather like the change after all this time. (about time)
Its only when its claimed by some to be an aircraft able to do so much more because of all this modern technology and a giant step forward for the rescue services (and they fall for it) that a few folk are reluctantly prompted to set the record straight with a few comments as above. Thankyou
Last edited by 4candals; 13th Apr 2008 at 22:58. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So just a quick question, if not the AW139, than what other helicopter of that class would work ? I don't see many competition - If MCA or CHC want two types of helicopters - big and small, than only the EC155 and Bell 412 are in the '139 class.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LT Fulbar
I would love to give an answer to your question as I personally feel if a medium size aircraft is required it should at minimum have the cabin space of a the old Wessex. The AW 139’s cabin space is a challenge at best and if the auxiliary tank has to be in fitted, in my view completely unsuitable for UK SAR.
It would appear the MCA have been blinged by the shiny new aircraft and they are being put into service without adequate evaluation. The S92 may well prove a good choice; it is unlikely that the AW139 will.
Yes, this is an interim contract and it would have made more sense to have continued with upgraded S61’s, even if that was to be with a different operator, I believe both the main contenders offered that choice. This would have given the SAR H team and future bidders longer to source and evaluate the best aircraft to see us safely into the future.
I would love to give an answer to your question as I personally feel if a medium size aircraft is required it should at minimum have the cabin space of a the old Wessex. The AW 139’s cabin space is a challenge at best and if the auxiliary tank has to be in fitted, in my view completely unsuitable for UK SAR.
It would appear the MCA have been blinged by the shiny new aircraft and they are being put into service without adequate evaluation. The S92 may well prove a good choice; it is unlikely that the AW139 will.
Yes, this is an interim contract and it would have made more sense to have continued with upgraded S61’s, even if that was to be with a different operator, I believe both the main contenders offered that choice. This would have given the SAR H team and future bidders longer to source and evaluate the best aircraft to see us safely into the future.
Oh dear SARREMF - you do seem to have firmly embraced the AW ethic of promising a good aircraft for the job but actually delivering a non-role specific machine with some bits added on which still don't quite cut the mustard.
The ice protection pack will improve the situation for SARH???? classic AW speak for not providing the right capability in the first place. Let me see....will the contractor have to pay AW more for the ice protection kit???Oh yes, loads I expect.
4candles seems to have cut through the bull proffered by the MCA and others - you don't have a better RoA than the S61 and less cabin space.
If it was only the search patterns not working, why would it be limsar for no poor vis/night ops?
I know the 3A had problems, but that was 13 years ago and I keep being told by you and others that buying off the shelf from civilian sources prevents expensive cockups and delays - not so it seems. This is the 21st century but aircraft manufacturers are still happy to operate to the same shoddy standards of old.
The ice protection pack will improve the situation for SARH???? classic AW speak for not providing the right capability in the first place. Let me see....will the contractor have to pay AW more for the ice protection kit???Oh yes, loads I expect.
4candles seems to have cut through the bull proffered by the MCA and others - you don't have a better RoA than the S61 and less cabin space.
If it was only the search patterns not working, why would it be limsar for no poor vis/night ops?
I know the 3A had problems, but that was 13 years ago and I keep being told by you and others that buying off the shelf from civilian sources prevents expensive cockups and delays - not so it seems. This is the 21st century but aircraft manufacturers are still happy to operate to the same shoddy standards of old.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Bob the Builder said ....... YES WE CAN
I was once asked to give a short presentation to a bunch of makey-learny Test Pilots on the subject of how they can help develop a machine fit-for-purpose. I disappointed them by pointing out that in real life they get what they are given and try to get the best out of it then they give it to us drivers who have to find a way of delivering the goods in the real world despite all the RFM limitations. I make no claims to be an authority but having operated a dozen or so helicopters in a dozen or so roles I can say that without the flexibility and adaptability of the flight crews there are many tasks that would have been left undone.
Remember the most prolific EMS light twin was the Bo105 - built like a brick ****-house but shook your fillings out during the landing and single engine ops were so marginal that when MBB went back and checked the numbers they reduced the Cat A numbers by 170Kg. But we set up the UK's first EMS operation with it and it did a damn good job.
The dear old S61. I've probably got more time in that than anything else but you have to face up to the fact that it could not deliver the CG contract as written without (illegally?? at the time anyway) overloading beyond the certified MTOW. The C of G of at least one machine was so marginal that we dare not weigh the aircraft accurately.
The Sea King - great workhorse and as long as you have a bus-load of Ginger Beers, a truck-load of spares and a couple of spare machines in the hangar it will do the job brilliantly, despite having a hoist so far back that transfers to some vessels and subs relied on a bit more than skill.
I could go on but I wont bore you. Suffice it to say that given a rotor and a couple of engines you can almost do any job anywhere if the drivers and crews are good enough but the closest I have come to feeling that "At last a good basic platform with joined up design" was when I got out of the 139 after my first trip. And, ladies and gentlemen, it can only get better. Watch this space.
G
Remember the most prolific EMS light twin was the Bo105 - built like a brick ****-house but shook your fillings out during the landing and single engine ops were so marginal that when MBB went back and checked the numbers they reduced the Cat A numbers by 170Kg. But we set up the UK's first EMS operation with it and it did a damn good job.
The dear old S61. I've probably got more time in that than anything else but you have to face up to the fact that it could not deliver the CG contract as written without (illegally?? at the time anyway) overloading beyond the certified MTOW. The C of G of at least one machine was so marginal that we dare not weigh the aircraft accurately.
The Sea King - great workhorse and as long as you have a bus-load of Ginger Beers, a truck-load of spares and a couple of spare machines in the hangar it will do the job brilliantly, despite having a hoist so far back that transfers to some vessels and subs relied on a bit more than skill.
I could go on but I wont bore you. Suffice it to say that given a rotor and a couple of engines you can almost do any job anywhere if the drivers and crews are good enough but the closest I have come to feeling that "At last a good basic platform with joined up design" was when I got out of the 139 after my first trip. And, ladies and gentlemen, it can only get better. Watch this space.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sea King - ................... despite having a hoist so far back that transfers to some vessels and subs relied on a bit more than skill.
(Sorry, different thread.)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the negativity of pilots that believe the only way to hover is boats axis (how the hell do the Senior service ever cope?) and the lack of auto hover, (isn't that the pilots job vmc day). 
Fear change or accept it and work with it, its going to happen!
ROA? Sufficent to cover the Channel and surrounds.
Ilumination? Day cab.
Freezing (0 deg minus) capability still being studied in 2001 at Chivenor on the Has MK3a! Your argument is? got there evetually after 35 yearstho still limited?
However, maybe the cabin is too small...
Runs back to post office.....
Fear change or accept it and work with it, its going to happen!
ROA? Sufficent to cover the Channel and surrounds.
Ilumination? Day cab.
Freezing (0 deg minus) capability still being studied in 2001 at Chivenor on the Has MK3a! Your argument is? got there evetually after 35 yearstho still limited?
However, maybe the cabin is too small...
Runs back to post office.....
WC
Er, just a small point. Lee on Solent is 24hr. all weather and Portland is 0900-2100ish. all weather! Or had you missed that bit?
3D
(isn't that the pilots job vmc day).
Day cab.
3D
Winch control - you know that some pilots can cope with aircraft axis AND boat axis decks
I'm not sure what you mean re icing clearance on the Sea King - there are limitations on DA and AUM but the fact is it is cleared down to minus 7 degrees without any fancy icing protection kit unlike the shiny new AW139 which has NO icing clearance.
Say hello to Mrs Goggins and Jess the cat
I'm not sure what you mean re icing clearance on the Sea King - there are limitations on DA and AUM but the fact is it is cleared down to minus 7 degrees without any fancy icing protection kit unlike the shiny new AW139 which has NO icing clearance.
Say hello to Mrs Goggins and Jess the cat