SARH to go
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: north
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab said:
"So that leaves aircraft which don't have the range/capacity to match the Sea King. So much for 'no lesser capability'!"
Last time I looked the RAF Sea King needs to loose around 600 lbs of role equipment to allow you to put full fuel in it and get the 252 milse ROA claimed.
With the Aux tanks fitted as standard to the S92 you can fly a ROA of 252 nm with a genuine 30 mins on scene without removing any role equipment; ie no strip lists and no delay in take off to strip out seats rad shack and so on.
Sea King or S92
you pick!!!
"So that leaves aircraft which don't have the range/capacity to match the Sea King. So much for 'no lesser capability'!"
Last time I looked the RAF Sea King needs to loose around 600 lbs of role equipment to allow you to put full fuel in it and get the 252 milse ROA claimed.
With the Aux tanks fitted as standard to the S92 you can fly a ROA of 252 nm with a genuine 30 mins on scene without removing any role equipment; ie no strip lists and no delay in take off to strip out seats rad shack and so on.
Sea King or S92
you pick!!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARSUM,
Does fitting the aux tanks have any detrimental operational effect on the S-92.
As for ever decreasing Sea King serviceability, can anyone provide the stats to prove this or otherwise?
At least the SAR-H pantomime horse only has two people inside it now so at least they can have an end each.
HAL
Does fitting the aux tanks have any detrimental operational effect on the S-92.
As for ever decreasing Sea King serviceability, can anyone provide the stats to prove this or otherwise?
At least the SAR-H pantomime horse only has two people inside it now so at least they can have an end each.
HAL
HAL,
Accurate figures for Sea King serviceability trends would presumably be available via a Freedom of Information request.
Although Sea King serviceability is far from perfect, the problems are to a large degree offset by having 2 aircraft at each base - so it's still very rare that neither aircraft is able to respond, and even now, after 30 years of service, both are frequently available at once (as in the Morpeth floods, attended by both Boulmer Sea Kings only 12 days ago). I would strongly suspect that having one new aircraft instead of 2 old ones would not improve availability of the 1st Standby aircraft - we've already seen the problems experienced by the S-92 in the last couple of months (and this isn't a dig at CHC/MCA/anyone else - just a statement of fact).
There has been a dip in availability this year while the new SKIOS engineers bed in - the problems have apparently been worst at Valley, due it seems to a lack of personnel. The same problem beset BRAMA when Hawk engineering was first contractorised, but the situation improved as time went on, and one hopes the same will occur with the Sea King contract.
TOTD
Accurate figures for Sea King serviceability trends would presumably be available via a Freedom of Information request.
Although Sea King serviceability is far from perfect, the problems are to a large degree offset by having 2 aircraft at each base - so it's still very rare that neither aircraft is able to respond, and even now, after 30 years of service, both are frequently available at once (as in the Morpeth floods, attended by both Boulmer Sea Kings only 12 days ago). I would strongly suspect that having one new aircraft instead of 2 old ones would not improve availability of the 1st Standby aircraft - we've already seen the problems experienced by the S-92 in the last couple of months (and this isn't a dig at CHC/MCA/anyone else - just a statement of fact).
There has been a dip in availability this year while the new SKIOS engineers bed in - the problems have apparently been worst at Valley, due it seems to a lack of personnel. The same problem beset BRAMA when Hawk engineering was first contractorised, but the situation improved as time went on, and one hopes the same will occur with the Sea King contract.
TOTD
SARsum - nice idea but the S92 doesn't actually have a long range fuel tank fit that is cleared for use. Not only that but if it is in permanently you lose cabin seating capacity and if you have to put it in for a job, it takes so long you will never make your response time.
By comparison, the role equipment on a Sea King that is not needed for the job is easily removed (generally the Jock's Box and superfluous medical kit) and you still get 250 nm RoA, the seating capacity for 17 survivors, a minimum of 30 mins on scene and a comfortable fuel margin (usually about 45 mins extra flight time) to boot because of the way we are required to do our fuel planning.
The reason the Carson bladed Navy cabs are having problems is because they should be fitted with the non-folding head and the bi-filar vibration absorbers which would improve the track and balance issues presently being experienced. However, someone must have baulked at the cost and the Navy got half the job (nothing new there in Military procurement terms).
Spanish Waltzer - the Sea Kings may be old (although the 3As are only 12 )but they are still very capable and fly far more hours than the equivalent civilian aircraft in the same role. Our serviceability might not be perfect but nor is anyones and, as has been mentioned, we do have a second aircraft at each of the 6 flights plus 3 at the OCU - not to mention the ones presently stuck in the congestion of Fleetlands and those undergoing HUMS fitting.
One thing I must correct is my use of the phrase 'no lesser capability' which should read 'at least as good as the current service' as per the IPT statement.
On present form the phrase 'fat f888ing chance' is how I would rate the chances of SARH actually complying with the statement.
By comparison, the role equipment on a Sea King that is not needed for the job is easily removed (generally the Jock's Box and superfluous medical kit) and you still get 250 nm RoA, the seating capacity for 17 survivors, a minimum of 30 mins on scene and a comfortable fuel margin (usually about 45 mins extra flight time) to boot because of the way we are required to do our fuel planning.
The reason the Carson bladed Navy cabs are having problems is because they should be fitted with the non-folding head and the bi-filar vibration absorbers which would improve the track and balance issues presently being experienced. However, someone must have baulked at the cost and the Navy got half the job (nothing new there in Military procurement terms).
Spanish Waltzer - the Sea Kings may be old (although the 3As are only 12 )but they are still very capable and fly far more hours than the equivalent civilian aircraft in the same role. Our serviceability might not be perfect but nor is anyones and, as has been mentioned, we do have a second aircraft at each of the 6 flights plus 3 at the OCU - not to mention the ones presently stuck in the congestion of Fleetlands and those undergoing HUMS fitting.
One thing I must correct is my use of the phrase 'no lesser capability' which should read 'at least as good as the current service' as per the IPT statement.
On present form the phrase 'fat f888ing chance' is how I would rate the chances of SARH actually complying with the statement.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: shetland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why bother?
Crab obviously has all the answers,his 50,s design is technicaly ahead of Skorskys latest kit,the S92 cannot be improved on,therefore should not be considered as a serious contender for SARH.
The offer of a fact finding visit is still on ,pm me to arrange suitable dates,i think you wil be impressed,certain memebers of your establishment past and present seem to think so.
Bristow out of the bid,coincidence ,with the present USA financial situation,i think so.OLOG(BRISTOW)/LEHMAN too closely tied,so much for corporate governance and all that stuff,tough times ahead?
If it has taken a year to work out the contract is not worth the investment,says it all,how much did that excercise cost.
BHL was a good company,all it is now is an extension of the GOM mindset using the past safe name of a pioneering aviation,led by a bunch of non aviation suits,feeding off an excellent brand name-shame!
The offer of a fact finding visit is still on ,pm me to arrange suitable dates,i think you wil be impressed,certain memebers of your establishment past and present seem to think so.
Bristow out of the bid,coincidence ,with the present USA financial situation,i think so.OLOG(BRISTOW)/LEHMAN too closely tied,so much for corporate governance and all that stuff,tough times ahead?
If it has taken a year to work out the contract is not worth the investment,says it all,how much did that excercise cost.
BHL was a good company,all it is now is an extension of the GOM mindset using the past safe name of a pioneering aviation,led by a bunch of non aviation suits,feeding off an excellent brand name-shame!
Steve OC and Calli - what has changed in the last couple of months then? The last information posted here by S92 operators was that the tanks were not cleared for use in UK - if this is not now the case then please post the details of how long they take to fit, how much seating capacity is lost and whether or not they are NOW fitted as standard on the Stornoway and Sumburgh cabs.
267.4 fwd - I know the S92 is a good aircraft and should be 50 years better than the Sea King(despite being based on the Blackhawk which is hardly a spring chicken) but it is not without its problems. New aircraft for SAR is everyones wish but it has to be the right aircraft so that capability is not lost.
Just because it is new and shiny doesn't make it better. The Sea King still demonstrates the best all-round capability for a SAR aircraft - your new toys should be exceeding that capability in all areas but they don't.
267.4 fwd - I know the S92 is a good aircraft and should be 50 years better than the Sea King(despite being based on the Blackhawk which is hardly a spring chicken) but it is not without its problems. New aircraft for SAR is everyones wish but it has to be the right aircraft so that capability is not lost.
Just because it is new and shiny doesn't make it better. The Sea King still demonstrates the best all-round capability for a SAR aircraft - your new toys should be exceeding that capability in all areas but they don't.
Hansard Report - 6 Nov 2006:
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of (a) the overall military helicopter fleet and (b) the helicopter fleet deployed in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan are considered (A) fit for service and (B) battle-worthy, broken down by helicopter type. [98556]
Mr. Ingram: The MOD does not use the terms fit for service and battle-worthy in describing helicopters. We use the term “fit for purpose”, which means those that are available, reliable, airworthy and capable of carrying out their planned missions on a given date.
Helicopter type Fit for purpose (Percentage)
Sea King MK 3/3A - 53%
Although this figure does not denote ‘On-State’, it does suggest - for whatever reason - that 47% (12 Platforms) of the MK3/MK3A fleet are either unserviceable, undergoing maintenance or used as Xmas tree’s to support current OPS.
Will not the winner be expected to deliver 98% ‘On-State’ readiness with about the same number of airframes as the RAF currently operates, but for all 12 bases not just the current 6 operated by the RAF.
Although the ‘Queen of the Skies’ (after the Chinook that is), the venerable Sea King is clearly not the way forward - with or without an X-Box 360 cockpit and composite planks and neither is any other old bird likely to fall over in the wind.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of (a) the overall military helicopter fleet and (b) the helicopter fleet deployed in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan are considered (A) fit for service and (B) battle-worthy, broken down by helicopter type. [98556]
Mr. Ingram: The MOD does not use the terms fit for service and battle-worthy in describing helicopters. We use the term “fit for purpose”, which means those that are available, reliable, airworthy and capable of carrying out their planned missions on a given date.
Helicopter type Fit for purpose (Percentage)
Sea King MK 3/3A - 53%
Although this figure does not denote ‘On-State’, it does suggest - for whatever reason - that 47% (12 Platforms) of the MK3/MK3A fleet are either unserviceable, undergoing maintenance or used as Xmas tree’s to support current OPS.
Will not the winner be expected to deliver 98% ‘On-State’ readiness with about the same number of airframes as the RAF currently operates, but for all 12 bases not just the current 6 operated by the RAF.
Although the ‘Queen of the Skies’ (after the Chinook that is), the venerable Sea King is clearly not the way forward - with or without an X-Box 360 cockpit and composite planks and neither is any other old bird likely to fall over in the wind.
Crab!
Didn't you know? You must be out of the loop! Oh yes, you were never in it...........
The last information posted here by S92 operators was that the tanks were not cleared for use in UK - if this is not now the case then please post the details of how long they take to fit, how much seating capacity is lost and whether or not they are NOW fitted as standard on the Stornoway and Sumburgh cabs.
Bristow out of SAR-H Bidding
Heard today that Bristow have pulled out of the bidding process for SAR Harmonisation. No details, simply that.
Jumped onto PPrune to find out whether it was a commercial, financial, strategical or political decision, but nothing here. Anyone know why they would do this and presumably leave the contract open to CHC ??
Jumped onto PPrune to find out whether it was a commercial, financial, strategical or political decision, but nothing here. Anyone know why they would do this and presumably leave the contract open to CHC ??
Chcoffshore - and the purpose of your last post was.........?????
It certainly didn't answer the question and as an offshore operator you are exactly where in the SAR loop?
Hilife - as your info suggests the 53% figure is a snapshot and not representative of the 1st standby availability which is still running at circa 96%.
The winner will be required to maintain 98% availability of 1st standby at all 12 flights (depending on how the 66 mil pers are distributed) not just the 4 presently operated under civilian contract - but how many aircraft it needs to achieve that is up to the winning bidder.
It doesn't take a genius to see that only having one aircraft at each flight will mean instant non-availability if it goes u/s and that will attract penalties as well as affect the provision of service.
Most of those championing new aircraft for SAR seem to be saying that it is OK to compromise the quality of the service because the aircraft are newer.
It certainly didn't answer the question and as an offshore operator you are exactly where in the SAR loop?
Hilife - as your info suggests the 53% figure is a snapshot and not representative of the 1st standby availability which is still running at circa 96%.
The winner will be required to maintain 98% availability of 1st standby at all 12 flights (depending on how the 66 mil pers are distributed) not just the 4 presently operated under civilian contract - but how many aircraft it needs to achieve that is up to the winning bidder.
It doesn't take a genius to see that only having one aircraft at each flight will mean instant non-availability if it goes u/s and that will attract penalties as well as affect the provision of service.
Most of those championing new aircraft for SAR seem to be saying that it is OK to compromise the quality of the service because the aircraft are newer.
Helicopter type Fit for purpose (Percentage)
Sea King MK 3/3A - 53%
Sea King MK 3/3A - 53%
What the more partisan posters from mil and civ camps on this thread have yet to acknowledge is that neither 2 old aircraft nor 1 new one per base is an ideal solution - the gold standard surely would be to have 2 new and modern aircraft. Anyone holding their breath?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finger on the pulse
Heard today that Bristow have pulled out of the bidding process for SAR Harmonisation. No details, simply that.
Jumped onto PPrune to find out whether it was a commercial, financial, strategical or political decision, but nothing here. Anyone know why they would do this and presumably leave the contract open to CHC ??
Jumped onto PPrune to find out whether it was a commercial, financial, strategical or political decision, but nothing here. Anyone know why they would do this and presumably leave the contract open to CHC ??
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balance
You know what is really needed on Pprune is a genuine unbiased view of both sides of the argument. Then we could all draw a valid conclusion about the best way forward with the best possible aircraft. It is of course more likely that the sky will be filled with flying pigs!!!! I wonder what sort of radius of action they can make. There would be of course concerns as to where to attach the hoist!!
Torque - you are quite right but that gold standard isn't affordable within the present budget. The main reason AW seem to have pulled out is that to provide all the aircraft, SAR cover, training et al would have left no money as profit and therefore not commercially viable.
The ridiculous comedy/tragedy whereby the number of mil personnel became fixed at 66 is symptomatic of the problems - more mil personnel would mean less cost but the process has gone so far that any further slippage will start to impinge on the end of the MCA interim contract, opening a whole new can of worms. Thus, even though a possible solution is available and the errors made have been recognised by those in power, we will continue on the same path because no-one is brave enough to say no - possibly because it opens the doors to possible litigation since bidders could have submitted different bids had they actually been free to suggest numbers for the mil/civ balance.
Strangely there doesn't ever seem to have been a 'do nothing option' case put forward in order to show the cost of what we presently have and therefore the value for money that the SARH contract would provide to the taxpayer
The ridiculous comedy/tragedy whereby the number of mil personnel became fixed at 66 is symptomatic of the problems - more mil personnel would mean less cost but the process has gone so far that any further slippage will start to impinge on the end of the MCA interim contract, opening a whole new can of worms. Thus, even though a possible solution is available and the errors made have been recognised by those in power, we will continue on the same path because no-one is brave enough to say no - possibly because it opens the doors to possible litigation since bidders could have submitted different bids had they actually been free to suggest numbers for the mil/civ balance.
Strangely there doesn't ever seem to have been a 'do nothing option' case put forward in order to show the cost of what we presently have and therefore the value for money that the SARH contract would provide to the taxpayer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be surprised if the other bidders don't pull out. Fixed price for 30 years, no escalation built in. Industry cannot plan 3 years ahead let alone 30!
Don't take this as gospel, but it's doing the rounds.
Don't take this as gospel, but it's doing the rounds.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Link to item in today's Aberdeen Press & Journal:
Bristow out of the running for rescue contract - Press & Journal
Rumours heard yesterday were that the contract had too many penalty clauses in it and that it was financially unviable and totally restrictive. UKAR apparently came to the decision to pull out after two days of talks with MOD and MCA. "Financial suicide for the operator that takes it on" was also another rumour doing the rounds.
Wonder how the RAF would work it if they had to comply with the contract terms if that is the case?
Bristow out of the running for rescue contract - Press & Journal
Rumours heard yesterday were that the contract had too many penalty clauses in it and that it was financially unviable and totally restrictive. UKAR apparently came to the decision to pull out after two days of talks with MOD and MCA. "Financial suicide for the operator that takes it on" was also another rumour doing the rounds.
Wonder how the RAF would work it if they had to comply with the contract terms if that is the case?
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 19th Sep 2008 at 21:04. Reason: Fix the link address
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No profit to be made, to tight on time to get all in place, penalty clauses to big, revealing of proprietary info, no escalation of costs for the term of the contract, what savvy company would want it? It's a company breaker.
Sounds as if the mil want to keep it and are making it as unattractive as possible.
Sounds as if the mil want to keep it and are making it as unattractive as possible.